Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 214 (CAL)

Prasanta Kr. Ghosh v. UNION OF INDIA

2010-02-26

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, PRANAB KUMAR DEB

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 237 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein on merits. 2. Scrutinising the records, we find that the petitioner herein was removed from the service pursuant to the order passed by the disciplinary authority which has been subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority. 3. Going through the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority we find that no reason has been furnished by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellant authority in support of the punishment for removal imposed upon the petitioner herein. The aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority is set out hereunder: "I have gone through the article of charges, the enquiry report and the representation submitted by Sri P. K. Ghosh. The article of charges have been proved and Sri P. K. Ghosh, TCA'/BWN is found guilty in this case and the punishment for removal from service is imposed." 4. It is not in dispute that a specific charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner also submitted reply to the said charge-sheet. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and enquiry report was also submitted. The writ petitioner submitted a representation before the disciplinary authority in relation to the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued the order of punishment for removal from service in respect of the petitioner herein. 5. On examination of the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, we find that no reason has been assigned in support of the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner herein. 6. The learned Advocate representing the respondents, however, submits that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not required to assign any reason for awarding the punishment. 7. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the respondent authorities. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Roop Singh Negi, reported in 2009(2) SCC 570 , specifically held : "23. Furthermore, the, order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned........................" 9. vs. Roop Singh Negi, reported in 2009(2) SCC 570 , specifically held : "23. Furthermore, the, order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned........................" 9. Since the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority with regard to imposition of punishment for removal from service are not supported by any reason, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are accordingly dismissed. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is also set aside. 11. We have been informed by the learned Counsel of both the parties that the petitioner herein has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, no direction can be issued at this stage for reinstatement of the petitioner in service. 12. In view of quashing of the punishment for removal of the petitioner from service, the respondents should treat the petitioner all through in service as if the order of removal was never issued to the said petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner had actually no scope to work from the date of removal till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, we are of the opinion that justice will be sub-served if the respondents are directed to pay 50% of the back wages to the said petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay 50% of the back wages to the petitioner for the period in question i.e. from the date of removal till the date of attaining the age of superannuation upon treating the said petitioner on duty all through. 14. Since a considerable time has already lapsed, the respondents are directed to make necessary payment towards the admissible service benefits of the petitioner including the back wages at an early date but positively within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and the pensionary benefits of the petitioner should, however, be released within a reasonable time. 15. The writ petition thus stands allowed. 16. In the facts of the present case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.