Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Alak Ranjan Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
W.P.S.T. 243 of 2013
Sri Alak Ranjan Das
VS.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
For the Writ
Petitioner : Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Sakti Pada Jana,
Mr. Subhajyoti Das
Advocates
For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee
Sr. Government Advocate & A.G.P.
Md. Hasanuzzaman,
Mr. Somnath Naskar
Advocates
Hearing on : 04.07.2023
Judgment on : 04.07.2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
The writ petition is directed against the order dated June
11, 2013 passed in O.A.442 of 2013.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal rejected the
challenge of the disciplinary proceedings initiated as against
the writ petitioner.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner
submits that, there is gross delay on the part of the
administration in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. He
submits that delay is of two aspects. One is the delay in the
initiation of the proceedings. The other is the delay with regard
to the conclusion of the proceedings.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner draws
the attention of the Court to the fact that, the writ petitioner
superannuated on March 31, 2013. He was paid his retiral
benefits including a cheque for gratuity. However, the cheque
for gratuity could not be encashed since, the administration
issued stop payment instructions in respect of such gratuity
cheque.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner relies
upon (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 154 (State of Andra
Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan) and 2022 SCC OnLine Cal
4036 (Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others vs. Dilip
Kumar Das and Others) and submits that, in view of the
delay in disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, the same
became stale. In the event, the writ petitioner is to face the
disciplinary proceedings today, he would be prejudiced. He will
be without any witness in respect of a charge of 2013.
Consequently, the submits that, the disciplinary proceedings
as against the writ petitioner be quashed.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State relies
upon (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 496 (State of West
Bengal and Others. Vs. Pronab Chakraborty) and submits
that the issue as to whether, the disciplinary proceedings can
be continued subsequent to the superannuation of an
employee in terms of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services
(Death Cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, was settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on October 15, 2014. Therefore, he
contends there was no delay on the part of the administration.
The present the writ petition is pending since 2013. One of the
issues raked up was initiation of the departmental proceedings
and the continuation thereof subsequent to the
superannuation of the writ petitioner.
7. In reply, learned advocate appearing for the writ
petitioner submits that, there was no stay in the writ petition.
Therefore, there was no impediment in the administration
concluding the disciplinary proceedings.
8. The writ petitioner superannuated on March 31, 2023. A
memorandum dated March 26, 2013 containing the charges
as against the writ petitioner was served upon the writ
petitioner on March 28, 2013.
9. One of the issues raised before the Tribunal, at the
behest of the writ petitioner was continuation of departmental
proceedings in view of Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services
(Death Cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.
10. The Original Application being O.A.442 of 2013 was
disposed of on June 11, 2013. Immediately, thereafter, the
present writ petition was filed. In the present writ petition also,
the continuation of disciplinary proceedings subsequent to
superannuation of the writ petitioner was also raised as a
ground particularly Ground (III). In course of hearing today,
learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that
he is not prerssing the writ petition on the ground of
continuation of disciplinary proceedings subsequent to
superannuation.
11. The issue of continuation of disciplinary proceedings
subsequent to superannuation received consideration of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pronab Chakraborty (supra) where
their Lordships held that a departmental proceedings can
continue against a delinquent employee after superannuation.
12. In N. Radhakishan (supra) the Supreme Court
considered the question of delay of conclusion of a
departmental proceedings. It observed that, a pre-determined
principle applicable to all cases and situations cannot be laid
down for the purpose of considering whether there was delay
in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. However, their
Lordships observed that the delay should not be abnormal and
that there should be explanation for the delay.
13. In Dilip Kumar Das and Others (supra) the coordinate
Bench, considered the disciplinary proceedings against the
delinquent who was taken into custody on March 15, 2012.
The delinquent was enlarged on bail on May 10, 2012. He was
granted promotion to higher post during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings. No disciplinary proceedings was started
against the delinquent although he was in custody for more
than 48 hours. The delinquent thereafter superannuated from
service on July 31, 2021. In such context, the Division Bench
found on consideration of various authorities including N.
Radhakishan (supra) that there was abnormal delay in the
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and the therefore,
quashed the same.
14. The factual matrix in the present case is not same. The
charges relates to period of 2010. Charge-sheet is dated March
26, 2013. The writ petitioner questioned the disciplinary
proceedings first before the Tribunal and then before the High
Court inter alia on the ground of Rule 10 of the West Bengal
Services (Death Cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 with
regard thereto and kept the writ petition pending from 2013
till date. Administration cannot be faulted for the pendency of
the writ petition.
15. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, the delay
was not occasioned by the administration. In fact, it was the
writ petitioner who raised issues with regard to the
disciplinary proceedings and ensured that the same was not
disposed of within a reasonable period of time since its
initiation.
16. A charge-sheet per se does not give rise to any right to
approach the Writ Court unless, it is established that, the
charge-sheet was issued by an authority without jurisdiction
or was vitiated by mala fides. In the facts of the present case,
it cannot be said that, charge-sheet was issued by an
authority without jurisdiction. In fact that is not the case of
the writ petitioner also. Mala fide is yet to be established.
17. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present
writ petition.
18. W.P.S.T. 243 of 2013 is dismissed without any order as
to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
19. I agree.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
Later:
20. At this stage, learned advocate appearing for the writ
petitioner prays for stay.
21. We find no reason to stay of our judgment and order.
22. Prayer for stay is considered and rejected.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
CHC
