Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Panchanan Roy vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
FMA 419 of 2024
PANCHANAN ROY
VS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
For the appellant : Mr. Bikash Ch. Das,
Mr. Ramkrishna Biswas, Advocates
For the UOI : Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi,
Ms. Banani Bhattacharya, Advocates
Heard & Judgement on : September 18, 2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February
16, 2023 passed in WPA 12985 of 2011.
2. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
appellant is similarly situated and circumstances as that of two other
delinquents who were imposed minor punishments in respect of similar
charges. He draws the attention of the Court to the Article of Charges
in respect of two other delinquents who were imposed minor
punishments. He also draws the attention of the Court to the Article of
Charges levelled as against the appellant. He submits that, Article- III
of the Article of Charges as against the appellant, was not proved
Signed By :
DEBABRATA DAS
High Court of during the inquiry. In support of such contention, he draws the
Calcutta
20 th of September
2024 01:05:15 PM
attention of the Court to the Inquiry Report. He submits that the
Presenting Officer looked into the Attendance Register and passed an
opinion which, according to him, is unacceptable. Consequently,
according to him, since the Article-III of the Article of Charges was not
proved, the other two Article of Charges being similar as that of the
two other delinquents who were imposed minor punishment should be
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, since
the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of removal from
services, which is not a minor punishment, Disciplinary Authority erred
in not doing so. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate such fact
and erred in dismissed the writ petition.
5. Respondent Authorities are represented.
6 A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant on
five charges. The first article of charge relates to his failure to attend
regimental duties like parades on several dates and P.T. on one
specified date. The second article of charge is his failure to attend the
orderly room of Assistant Commandant on specified dates and absence
from parade. The third article of charge relates to the appellant being
found sleeping at night shift duty. The fourth article of charge relates
to his failure to start the engine of speed boat to catch persons of
interest. The fifth article of charge relates to the appellant being found
absent from barrage duty post and found at feeder canal without
obtaining prior permission for shifting of duty. The fifth charge also
relates to the appellant cutting down his name in the duty chart at his
own without permission from the competent authority.
7. On the basis of these five articles of charges, inquiry was held
where the Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed report finding that all
Signed By : the five articles of charges stood proved.
DEBABRATA DAS
High Court of
Calcutta
20 th of September
2024 01:05:15 PM
8. We perused Inquiry Report. Inquiry Report contains reasons as
to the finding of charges being proved. Writ Court is not concerned
with the sufficiency of the evidence or is called upon to re-appreciate
the evidence as the Appellate Authority. All that the writ Court is
required to consider is whether there is sufficient material to arrive at
the conclusion that the Inquiry Report returned.
9. In the facts of the present case, the fifth article of charges was
established as against the appellant as also the other articles of
charges.
10. There is no material placed on record or before the learned
Single Judge to suggest, let alone establish, to the contrary of finding.
11. Appellant challenged the decision taken in the disciplinary
proceeding by way of a writ petition. Such writ petition was allowed.
Being aggrieved, the respondent Authorities preferred an appeal being
MAT 4024 of 2001 when the Division Bench reversed the finding of the
learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. Appellant filed a Special
Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition 5265 of 2003. Such
Special Leave Petition was heard with other Special Leave Petition
which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by permitting the
appellant to file a fresh writ petition before the departmental Authority
in view of the fact that such other constable facing similar charges
were given rival punishment.
12. Appellant before us filed a representation for withdrawal of the
order of the removal from services and imposition of a minor
punishment. Such representation was rejected by a reasoned order.
The reasoned order was challenged by the appellant by way of a writ
petition which resulted in the impugned order.
13. Learned Single compared the Article of Charges of the two other
Signed By : delinquents who were imposed minor punishment with the charge
DEBABRATA DAS
High Court of
Calcutta
20 th of September
2024 01:05:15 PM
sheet of that of the appellant before us. Learned Single Judge held
that, the fifth article of charges was serious in nature and was absent
so far as the other two delinquents are concerned. Consequently,
learned Single Judge found that the appellant cannot justifiably claim
to be on the same footing and circumstance as that of the two other
delinquents who suffered minor punishment.
14. We consider the charge sheet of the two other delinquents who
were imposed minor punishment and the charge sheet as against the
appellant. As noted by the learned Single Judge, third charge as
against the appellant was absent in the charges levelled against the
two other delinquents who were imposed minor punishment. Third
charge as against the appellant was proved during the inquiry as noted
above.
15. Quantum of punishment is in the domain of the disciplinary
authority. Quantum of punishment imposed, on the charges
substantiated, cannot be said to be shocking or disproportionate.
16. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal.
17. FMA 419 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
18. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Dd
Signed By :
DEBABRATA DAS
High Court of
Calcutta
20 th of September
2024 01:05:15 PM
