Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sunanda Das vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 13 December, 2018
1
108/CL
13.12.2018
rrc
W.P.C.T. 29 of 2011
with
C.A.N. 1216 of 2011
(Sunanda Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.)
Mr. Ajoy Debnath
.....For the petitioner
Ms. Jyotsna Roy Mukherjee
.....For the respondents
Dismissal of O.A. 955 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Calcutta by its order dated 3rd October, 2008 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition dated 2nd February, 2011. An application seeking condonation of delay in presentation of the writ petition has been filed being C.A.N. 1216 of 2011, which is listed before us today for consideration.
We are at a loss to comprehend as to why an application for condonation of delay has been filed. If indeed the petitioner approached the Court belatedly, an explanation for such belated approach would have sufficed. Be that as it may, we have looked into the merits of the writ petition. The petitioner obtained employment in the year 1991. Subsequently, it was detected by her employer that she had submitted a fake mark-sheet from the Bihar School 2 Examination Board, Patna (hereafter the 'Board') while securing public employment. The employer established contact with the Board and obtained confirmation that the mark-sheet produced by the petitioner was indeed fake. Disciplinary proceedings followed with issuance of charge- sheet. The petitioner in her reply denied the charges. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. However, curiously enough, the petitioner stayed away from the enquiry. The enquiry officer had no other option but to proceed ex-parte. An enquiry report was submitted whereupon it was followed by a final order of dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged such order in a departmental appeal, which was dismissed. It was thereafter that she had approached the tribunal challenging the appellate order which, as noted above, dismissed the original application.
The best evidence that the petitioner could produce before the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, the tribunal as well as us is a certificate from the Board certifying that she had passed the examination conducted by it. For more than a decade, she did not make any such attempt. We called upon Mr. Debnath, learned advocate for the petitioner to produce 3 before us a document certifying that the petitioner had indeed passed the examination taken by the Board. No such document could be produced. Even if the petitioner had participated in the enquiry, nothing substantial would have turned on such participation because of her inability to counter the charge levelled against her of submitting a fake mark-sheet. The only contention advanced before us that the enquiry officer ought to have deferred the enquiry on the prayer of the petitioner, has no substance. We see no reason to entertain the grievance of the petitioner that she has been proceeded against in violation of principles of natural justice. Natural justice is insisted upon to bring about substantial justice and not to complete a mere ritual of hearing.
The writ petition stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
In view thereof, the connected application too stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.) 4