Recently, the Calcutta High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had set aside the dismissal of a government employee and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a government employee serving under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. Two charge memoranda were issued against him alleging misconduct, including failure to report to duty, disobedience of official orders, and non-compliance with directions issued by the administration as well as the Court. A departmental inquiry was conducted, after which the Chief Secretary, acting as the Disciplinary Authority, imposed the punishment of dismissal. The employee’s appeal was also rejected. Subsequently, the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside both the dismissal order and the appellate order, primarily on the ground that the punishment had been imposed by an authority who was also the appellate authority, thereby allegedly depriving the employee of a proper forum of appeal. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, the administration filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioners
The counsel for the Petitioners argued that the Chief Secretary, being the appointing authority, was competent to impose dismissal under Article 311(1) and the CCS (CCA) Rules. The Petitioner contended that the inquiry conducted by a subordinate authority was valid and there was no procedural lapse. It was further submitted that no appellate right was denied since an appeal lay before the Lieutenant Governor.
Contentions of the Respondent
The counsel for the Respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings were barred by the principle of res judicata, as an earlier Tribunal decision quashing similar proceedings had attained finality. It was further argued that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, which primarily involved absence from duty and non-compliance with administrative directions.It was also submitted that the Chief Secretary acted as both disciplinary and appellate authority, depriving him of a proper right to appeal.
Observation of the Court
The Court clearly held that Article 311(1) only restricts punishment by a subordinate authority and does not bar the appointing authority itself from imposing such punishment. It observed: “there is nothing in the said provision restricting the Appointing Authority himself to pass the order of dismissal… nobody subordinate to the Appointing Authority shall impose such penalty, but does not debar the Appointing Authority himself from doing so.”
On the issue of inquiry, the Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated and conducted by a subordinate authority, stating: “the initiation of a departmental proceeding can be by an officer subordinate to the Appointing Authority… only the dismissal/removal shall not be by an authority subordinate.”
Regarding the right of appeal, the Court rejected the Tribunal’s reasoning and noted that an appellate remedy was still available, observing that “an appeal lies against a punishment imposed by the Chief Secretary before the Lieutenant Governor… the respondent… having availed of it… cannot contend deprivation of appellate forum.”
The Court also emphasized that the Tribunal had already upheld the merits of the charges and procedural fairness, and interference was unwarranted.
Decision of the court
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal’s order. It upheld the dismissal of the respondent and affirmed both the disciplinary and appellate orders, holding that the punishment was legally valid and not disproportionate.
Case Title: The Lieutenant Governor and Others vs. Dharam Raj
Case No.: WP.CT/18/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Smita Das De
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P.C. Das, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
