PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the subject matter of challenge is the order dated 14.12.2021 passed in OA 350/00110/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinabove referred to as the ‘said Tribunal’ in short) at the instance of the writ petitioner/ original applicant. By the impugned order the said Tribunal declined to interfere with the finding of the disciplinary authority, the first appellate authority and the reviewing authority in connection with the departmental enquiry proceeding as initiated against the writ petitioner/ original applicant wherein the said three authorities found that the charge of misconduct as framed against the delinquent has been proved and thus the consequential punishment as imposed upon him is justified.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant lis we are at the very outset propose to deal with some factual events which are as under:

(i) On 21.07.2003 a registered deed of lease was executed between the respondent no. 1 authority (lessor) and the present writ petitioner and one Smt. Lily Swarnakar [lessee(s)] whereby and whereunder two numbers of quarter, particulars of which are mentioned in the schedule of the said deed of lease, were leased out in favour of the said lessee(s). It is pertinent to mention herein that at the time of execution and registration of the said deed of lease the first lessee that is the writ petitioner/ original applicant was employed with the respondent no. 1 authority as Senior Technician attached to wagon repair shop of the self same authority.

(ii) Sometimes in the year 2010 and 2011 the respondent no. 1 authority and/or its instrumentalities noticed that the lessee no. 1 that is the writ petitioner/ original applicant herein has constructed a brick wall structure and raised a fencing by encroaching the land of the respondent no. 1 authority without any permission and accordingly, by issuing several letters namely; letters dated 19.11.2010, 21.01.2011 and 08.06.2011, the writ petitioner was requested to remove the fencing and the wall with a further request not to encroach any land of the respondent no. 1 authority.

(iii) Since the writ petitioner/ original applicant did not adhere to the request of the respondent authorities as issued to him under cover of the aforementioned letters, a show-cause notice dated 09.09.2011 was served upon the writ petitioner/ original applicant.

(iv) Under cover of his letter dated 13.09.2011 the writ petitioner/ original applicant replied to such show-cause however, the same was not accepted by the respondent authorities which culminated issuance of a charge-sheet dated 01.11.2011 together with a statement of allegation levelled against him.

(v) The writ petitioner/ original applicant under cover of his letter dated 08.11.2011 made an attempt to justify his alleged action however, such explanation was not accepted by the respondent authorities and accordingly, on 29.11.2011 the respondent authorities initiated enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner on the basis of the charge as framed against him vide charge-sheet dated 01.11.2011.

(vi) In the enquiry proceeding the writ petitioner/ original applicant participated and put his all plausible defense however, the enquiry officer on conclusion of such enquiry proceeding in his report dated 07.09.2012 came to a finding that the charge as against the writ petitioner regarding “unauthorized use of company’s land” has been established.

(vii) The disciplinary authority on receipt of the report of the said enquiry proceeding and on consideration of the submission in writing as made by the delinquent came to a finding that the alleged misconduct of the writ petitioner/ original applicant namely “unauthorized use of company’s land” is duly proved and thus imposed a punishment of “reduction of existing basic pay by 1(one) stage in his existing scale of pay” with cumulative