Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
307/2013 on 22 July, 2013
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
1
22.07.2013
(25)
DC.
W.P.C.T. 307 of 2013
Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty
Mr. Barun Chatterjee
... for petitioner
Mr. Uttam Majumder... for U.O. I.
This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 26th June, 2013 whereby and
whereunder the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Calcutta Bench refused to pass any interim order in the
matter and directed the parties to file affidavit in connection
with the application filed before said Tribunal being O.A.
589 of 2013.
The learned counsel representing the
petitioner submits that the criminal proceedings was
initiated against the said petitioner on 11th May, 2006 and
the charge-sheet was filed in connection with the said
criminal case on 24th July, 2006.
The learned Advocate of the petitioner
submits that the criminal court is going to finally decided
the aforesaid criminal case since the said criminal case is at
the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learend
Advocate representing the petitioner further submits that
after a lapse of almost seven years, a departmental
proceeding has been started by the respondent authorities
against the petitioner on the identical charges as mentioned in the criminal case.
The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained in the eye of law on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating the said disciplinary proceedings and specially when the employee concerned, namely, the 2 petitioner herein is facing criminal trial on the identical charges.
No explanation has been given by the learned Advocate of the respondent authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of almost seven years and that too on the identical charges as mentioned in the criminal case now pending against the said petitioner.
Undisputedly, both the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings can go together but the authorities must disclose why the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner on the identical charges at a belated stage specially when the criminal Court is going to decide finally the pending criminal case in near future.
On the prayer of the learned Advocate representing the respondent authorities, hearing of this matter stands adjourned till 6th August, 2013.
Let there also be an interim order staying the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein until further orders.
Let photostat copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate of both the parties on the usual undertakings.
(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) (Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti-J.)