Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Santosh Kr Das vs Steel Authority Of India on 12 August, 2025
1 o.a. 350.01647.2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. O.A. 350/01647/2018 Heard on 11.07.2025
Date of order: 12.08.2025
Present : Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
SANTOSH KUMAR DAS, son of Late Patiram Das,
residing at Village & Post Office - Pradhan
Khanta, Katras Bazar, District - Dhanbad, Pin-
828114.
...... Applicant.
- VERSUS-
i) The Steel Authority of India Limited, a
Government of India Undertaking, through its
Chairman, having its office at Ispat Bhawan,
Lodi Road, New Delhi -110 003.
ii) The Chief Executive Officer, Steel Authority of
India Limited, having his office at IISCO Steel
Plant, Post Office & Police Station - Burnpur,
District - Paschim Bardhaman, Pin-713325.
iii) The General Manager (P&A), Steel Authority
of India Limited, having his office at IISCO Steel
Plant, Post Office & Police Station - Burnpur,
District - Paschim Bardhaman, Pin-713325.
iv) The Executive Director (Works), Steel
Authority of India Limited, having his office at
IISCO Steel Plant, Post Office & Police Station
Burnpur, District - Paschim Bardhaman, Pin-
713325.
v) The Deputy General Manager (PL-IRON),
Steel Authority of India Limited, having his
office at IISCO Steel Plant, Post Office & Police
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65=
DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone=
ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b
6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a
0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2 o.a. 350.01647.2018
Station - Burnpur, District - Paschim
Bardhaman, Pin - 713325.
vi) The Deputy General Manager (PL-Works),
Steel Authority of India Limited, having his
office at IISCO Steel Plant, Post Office & Police
Station - Burnpur, District - Paschim
Bardhaman, Pin-713325.
vii) The Deputy General Manager (RMHP-EM),
Steel Authority of India Limited, having his
office at IISCO Steel Plant, Post Office & Police
Station - Burnpur, District - Paschim
Bardhaman, Pin - 713325.
viii) The Junior Manager (PL), Steel Authority of
India Limited, having his office at IISCO Steel
Plant, Post Office & Police Station - Burnpur,
District - Paschim Bardhaman, Pin-713325.
....... Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. B. Chatterjee, Counsel
Mr. S.K. Dutta, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. L.K. Pal, Counsel
Mr. S. Pal, Counsel
Mr. B.B. Bhula, Counsel
ORDER
Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member:
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
"a) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities concerned to immediately allow the prayer of the applicant for release order from the service of the respondent authorities concerned;
b) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities concerned to forthwith set aside/cancel/withdraw/rescind the decision of the Appellate authority and final order of punishment and the enquiry report and charge sheet;"Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 o.a. 350.01647.2018 Facts of the case
2. The facts of the case are summarised below:
2.1 The applicant is a former employee of Steel Authority of India Ltd., IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur. He had joined the said company on 10.09.2011. He had applied for the post of Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) in the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and was selected for the said post vide letter of appointment dated 07.10.2016. He had thereafter tendered his resignation with immediate effect from the post held by him in the IISCO Steel Plant, vide his letter dated 01.11.2016 to concerned the respondent authority.
The applicant had submitted a further representation dated 25.11.2016 to the concerned respondent authority, praying for his release from the post held by him in IISCO, Steel Plant, Burnpur. He had thereafter joined the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited.
2.2 The applicant was informed by the DGM(RMHP-EM) Steel Authority of India Limited, IISCO Steel Plant (Respondent No. vii) vide his letter dated 29/12/2016 (Annexure A-8) that the due to the fact that CBI cases were pending against him, his resignation had not been processed and that the same would be processed only after he is cleared from the said cases. The applicant was advised by the said authority to join his duties with immediate effect, failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him. The applicant was again advised vide letter dated 03/02/2017 by the said respondent authority to join duty, failing which disciplinary action would be Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 o.a. 350.01647.2018 initiated against him. In response to the said letter, the applicant submitted a letter dated 12.02.2017 wherein he submitted, inter alia, that he already resigned and prayed for acceptance of his resignation submitted vide his letter dated 01/11/2016.
2.3 The applicant was informed vide letter dated 28.02.2017, that his reply dated 12.02.2017 was found to be unsatisfactory and that it had been decided to hold a domestic inquiry into the charge levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 03.02.2017. The applicant had thereafter filed an Original Application being O.A. No. 350/766/2017, seeking, inter alia, directions upon the respondent to withdraw the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him.
However, the said application was dismissed by this Tribunal, vide order dated 08.06.2017. The applicant had thereafter moved the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in A.S.T. No. 120 of 2017, challenging the order of this Tribunal dated O8.06.2017. The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, vide order dated 27.07.2017, had disposed the said writ petition with directions upon the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of reply of the petitioner to the 2nd show cause notice issued by the respondents. 2.4 The Executive Director (Works) & Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. iv), vide order dated 17.07.2017, imposed the penalty of discharge from service of the company upon the applicant. The applicant had, thereafter submitted an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 o.a. 350.01647.2018 17.07.2017 to the Chief Executive Officer, Steel Authority of India Limited, IISCO Steel Plant Burnpur (i.e. the Appellate Authority). However, the Chief Executive Officer, Steel Authority of India Limited and Appellate Authority, vide order dated 04/11/2017 upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Aggrieved with the said order, the applicant has filed this appeal.
3. The applicant had filed a supplementary affidavit dated 18.03.2021 and the respondents have filed their reply dated 13.03.24, to the same.
Hearing
4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and have considered the material on record.
5. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the for the applicant submitted that the applicant, after obtaining permission from the respondent authority, had participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) held by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and was selected for appointment to the said post. He further submitted that the applicant, after his selection to the said post, had tendered his resignation from SAIL IISCO Steel Plant Burnpur and had sought to be released from the said post, vide his letter dated 01.11.2016. He submitted that a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant was initiated 30 days after submission of his resignation and that after such a period, no Employer - Employee relationship existed between the Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
6 o.a. 350.01647.2018 applicant and the respondents and hence the order of the disciplinary Authority dated 17.07.2017 is not legally tenable. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider that there is no material on record to substantiate the charge against him and that the order passed by the said authority was without any basis or reason.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant, in his supplementary affidavit, has averred that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings and that he had never accepted the charge levelled against him during the enquiry proceedings held against him and that the signature on the proceeding of the enquiry dat4ed 11.04.2017 is not his signature and has been forged and that his requires to be investigated by a specialised agency.
7. Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that out of the two CBI cases pending against the applicant, he has been just discharged from one case and that only one case is pending against him at present.
8. At hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant had appeared in the domestic enquiry before the enquiry officer and had accepted the charge of misconduct and had begged apology for the same. He further submitted that the applicant had on 04.07.2017, replied to the 2nd show cause notice dated 19.06.2017 and that thereafter the Disciplinary Authority, had vide order dated 17.07.2017 issued a reasoned order discharging the applicant from service as a measure of penalty. Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 o.a. 350.01647.2018
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant, in his appeal filed before the Appellate Authority against the order dtd.17.07.2017 of the Disciplinary Authority, had not taken the ground that he was not allowed to participate in the domestic enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. He further submitted that the applicant had, in his appeal to the Appellate Authority, had also not taken the ground that the signature in the proceedings of the domestic enquiry dated 11.04.2017 is not his signature and that the same has been forged. He also submitted that the applicant has made this statement in his supplementary affidavit filed after almost 8 years. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant had filed the instant O.A. on 16.11.2018 and that nowhere in the Original Application had he mentioned that he was not allowed to appear in the enquiry proceedings and that the signature shown in the proceeding was a forged one. Ld. Counsel also submitted that even the applicant, in his rejoinder to the O.A. had also not mentioned that he had not been allowed to participate in the enquiry proceeding and that the signature in the proceeding of the enquiry was not his signature. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the Original Application filed by the applicant was heard by this Tribunal on nine different days between the period 08.06.2017 to 08.04.2021 and that he applicant had never alleged that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceeding and the signature shown in the proceeding was not his signature.
10. Ld. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 16.11.2021, in the case of The Chairman State Bank Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 o.a. 350.01647.2018 of India and Another Vs. M.J. James dated 16.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 8223 of 2009 reported in 2022 (2) SCC 301 and submitted that the applicant in the instant case has abandoned his rights, which may be expressed or implied from his conduct after applying the principle of acquiescence.
11. Ld. Counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supreme Court of India Vs. Union Bank of India. In the case of Y.P. Sarabhai Vs. Union Bank of India and Another in Civil Appeal No. 2672 of 2003, decided on 22.05.2006 where it has been held that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief on account of unauthorised absent from duty.
Findings
12. From the averments made by the applicant in his pleadings as well as from the submissions made by his Counsel it is clear that the applicant had joined the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited in the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) without waiting for the competent authority in the SAIL IISCO Steel Plant to accept his resignation from the post held by him in the said company. The resignation of the applicant as submitted by him vide his letter dated 01.11.2016 was not accepted by the respondent authority on the ground that there were 02 CBI cases pending against him. The applicant had been accordingly advised by the concerned respondent authority to resume his duty with the respondents, vide letters dated 29/12/2016 and 03/2/2017. The applicant, in disregard of such advice, joined his new assignment at Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 o.a. 350.01647.2018 Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, without waiting for acceptance of his resignation and issue of a formal release order. A disciplinary authority proceeding was thereafter initiated against the applicant which culminated in the imposition of penalty of discharge from service upon the applicant.
13. A copy of the "The certified standing orders for the steel Authority of India Limited, IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur " is available on record. Para 25 of the said orders define Acts of Misconduct. As per Sub Para (vi) of Para 25 of the said standing orders, the Act of habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days is an act of misconduct. Para 26 of the certified standing orders lists the penalties for misconduct and the same is reproduced below:
"26. PENALTIES FOR MISCONDUCT.
The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed for misconduct:-
(i) The following shall constitute minor penalties:-
(a) Censure;
(b) Fine; and
(c) Suspension without wages for a period not exceeding four days.
(ii) The following shall constitute major penalties:-
(a) Stoppage of increment, with or without cumulative effect,
(b) Reduction to a lower grade or post or lower stage in a time scale;
(c) Removal/Discharge from service which does not disqualify for future employment; and
(d) Dismissal from services.
Explanation : only one penalty may be imposed for one misconduct." Para 27 of the certified standing orders outlines the procedure for imposition of penalty and the same is reproduced below: Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 o.a. 350.01647.2018 "ii) Procedure for imposition of major penalties.
a) Where an employee is charged with an offence which may lead to the imposition of major penalty, he shall be informed in writing of the allegations against him and shall be given an opportunity to make representation within a period of not less than 7 days. On receipt of the employee's explanation, where the allegations are denied by him, an enquiry shall be held by an officer or officers nominated by the management. Such enquiry will be conducted by an officer other than the officer who has either reported the alleged misconduct or has issued the charge-sheet or is directly subordinate to him. At the enquiry, the employee concerned shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of explaining and defending his actions with the assistance of a fellow employee or a co-worker, who may even be a union official. Charge-sheeted employees shall be permitted to produce/cross-examine witness. Where such enquiry relates to the alleged misconduct of several employees, the enquiry may he held for all the employees together."
After perusing the material on record, we are of the opinion that the Disciplinary Authority has acted in accordance with the provisions of the certified standing orders of SAIL, IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur. We have also perused the order of the Appellate Authority dated 04.11.2017 and find that the said order has been passed in accordance with the provision of the standing orders of SAIL, IISCO Steel Plant.
14. A copy of the proceedings of the first sitting of the domestic enquiry held on 11.04.2017 to look into the charges levelled against the applicant is reproduced below:
"Proceedings of the First sitting of domestic enquiry held to look into the charges leveled against Sri Santosh Kumar Das, P. No-85263, OCT of RMHP department vide:
Charge-sheet no. RMHP/ADM/DSCP/08A/122 Dated 03-02-2017.
Present:-
1. Sri. Shyam Kishor Sah, Dy. Mgr (RMHP-Oprn) & Presenting officer
2. Sri. Kadar Mani, Jr.Mgr (PL-BOF, CCP,LDCP & Ref) & Enquiry officer
3. Sri. Santosh Kumar Das, P.No. 85263, OCT, charge sheeted Employee Date of First sitting of enquiry : 11-04-2017 Venue of Enquiry : Central Personnel Department Notice of Enquiry reference no.: CPD/3577 dated 29.03.2017 Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 o.a. 350.01647.2018 The delinquent was asked about the language in which he will be confident to face the enquiry to which he replied that Hindi language will be suitable to him. The charge sheet was read out and explained in Hindi which mentions the misconduct as per Clause No 25 (vi) as per Certified Standing Orders of the company which read as "Habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than ten days"
The delinquent was asked whether he had received the charge sheet in which he replied "yes" and also has submitted reply against the above mentioned charge sheet. The reply was shown to him and he had accepted that it is the same reply that he had sent through Speed Post.
The charge sheeted employee was apprised with the fact that he will be given full opportunity to defend his case and cross-examine the documents and witnesses of presenting side. He agreed that he will alone defend the case.
Statement of Presenting officer:
Presenting officer stated that Sri Santosh Kumar Das, P.No. 85263, OCT of RMHP department had absented himself without prior permission of his superior on dates as mentioned in chargesheet no. RMHP/ADM/DSCP/08A/122 Dated 03-02-2017. Presenting officer has submitted the attendance record of Sri Santosh Kumar Das to justify the absenteeism which was shown to the delinquent.
Chargesheeted Employee:
The delinquent was asked whether he accepts the misconduct as per Clause No 25(vi) as per Certified Standing Order mentioned in the above referred charge sheet. He accepted the charges and begged apology for the misconduct.
He was further enquired the reason for which he replied that he had put a resignation letter on 1st Nov, 2016 to the concerned deptt and didn't report after that. Upon enquiry he has shown receiving copy of that letter.
Exhibit Copy of the Attendance register of the deptt for the month of Oct, 2016 to Feb,2017 of Sri Santosh Kumar Das, P.No. 85263, OCT submitted by the Presenting officer, Copy of the resignation letter submitted by the delinquent.
(All the exhibits have been signed by P.O, E.O and charge sheeted employee.).
Sri Santosh Kumar Das, P.No. 85263, OCT accepted the charge made against him in chargesheet no. RMHP/ADM/DSCP/08A/122 Dated 03-02-2017.
The P.O and charge sheeted employee had understood the proceedings and accepted that it has been recorded correctly.
In view of the above, since Presenting officer and charge sheeted employee do not have anything more to add or present, the enquiry is hereby closed.
Sd/-11/04/17 Sd/11.04.17 Sd/-Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
12 o.a. 350.01647.2018
Shyam Kishor Sah Kadar Mani Santosh Kumar Das
Dy. Mgr(RMHP) Jr. Mgr(PL-BOF,CCP,LDCP&Ref) P.No. 85263
& Presenting Officer & Enquiry Officer OCT"
15. An extract from the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 16.11.2021 in the case of The Chairman State Bank of India and Another Vs. M.J James in Civil Appeal No. 8223 of 2009 which has been relied by the Ld. counsel for the respondents is reproduced below:
"29. Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify distinction between 'acquiescence' and 'delay and laches'. Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. 17[See Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 scc 1. Also, see Gobinda Ramanuj Das Mohanta v. Ram Charan Das and Suyamal Das, AIR 1925 Cal 1107] In literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent, concurrence, or acceptance, 18[See M/S Vidyavathi Kappor Trust v. Chief Commissioner Tax (1992) 194 584] which denotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention. 19[See Krishan Dev v. Smt. Ram Piari AIR 1964 HP 34] Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right to set aside the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and inspite of the infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance. 20[See "Introduction", UN Mitra, Tagore Law Lectures
- Law of Limitation and Prescription, Volume 1, 14TH Edition, 2016.] However, acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence.
30. Laches unlike limitation is flexible. However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches. Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay. Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. 21[Refer Footnote 18] Given the aforesaid legal position, inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal. Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation."Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 13 o.a. 350.01647.2018
16. The applicant has, in his supplementary affidavit dated 18.03.2021, claimed that he was not allowed to participate in the domestic enquiry, and that the signature purported to be have been made by him in the proceedings of the enquiry conducted during the domestic enquiry on 11.04.2017 is not his signature and that the same have been forged. However, the applicant had not taken these grounds in his appeal filed before the Appellate Authority against the order of the disciplinary authority. The applicant had also not made an averment to this effect in his pleadings. The aforesaid claim has been made by the applicant only in his Supplementary Affidavit after a period of nearly 08 years after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Manager State Bank of India and another Vs. M.J. James (supra), we are of the opinion that the aforesaid claim of the applicant cannot be accepted.
17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this Original Application lacks merit. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Anindo Majumdar) [UrmitaDatta(Sen)]
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Drh
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65=
DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:04:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0