Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Kalyana Chatterjee vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 14 December, 2022
1. OA 343/2020 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL _ KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA
0.A. 350/00343/2020 Date of order: 14.12.2022 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayvsh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member In the matter of :
Shri Kalyan Chatterjee, Son of Late Purandas Chatterjee, Ex-Constable, CBI, BS&FC, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, Village & town-Ukilpara, PO-Bishnupur, District- Bankura, Bengal-722122, presently residing at Rasmani Vila, Mohishgot, near DLF Building, Gate No. 5, Kolkata-700102.
seveee Applicant ° Vs.
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Grievance, having office at New Delhi, Pin-110001.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Banking Securities and Fraud Branch, having office at CGO Complex, DF-Block, F-Wing, 1st Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-
700064 (Disciplinary Authority).
3. The DIG of Police, BS & FC, CBI, New Delhi & Appellate Authority, CBI, having office at CBI Head Quarter, Plot No. 5C, GO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
4, The DIG, Head of Branch, CGI, BS & FC New Delhi having office at CBI Head Quarter, Plot No. 5C, GO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
yy a re For the Applicant For the Respondents Sone ON 2. | OA 343/2020
5. The Joint Director, CBI, having affice at CBI Head Quarter, Plot No. 5C, GD Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
6. The Director CBI, having his office at CBI Head Quarter, Plot Ne. SC, GO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
dmaeenee Respondents Mr, K. P. Chatterjee, Counsel Mr. RN, Bag, Counsel .
Mr. D. Roy, Counsel Mr. D. Talukdar, Counsel Mr. $. Samanta, Counsel None ORDER(Oral cee" Per: Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial] Member
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.
"%. 'The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief:
"a} To direct the respondents to act in accordance with the law, {b) Ta set aside the termination of the services of the applicant as a major penalty imposed under Rule 3(1 {i} & (Hi) af CCS (Conduct Rules}, 1264 rf Rule 6 of Dethi Special Falice Establishment (Subordinate Ranks} (Discipline and Appeal Rules 1961) end to reinstate him since the date af his placing under suspension Le, G3,02.2012;
fe} To reinstate the opplicent herein with full seciority and other service privileges ond financiol benefit since the date of suspension being G3,02.2012; , fd} Costs of the instant Jitigation;
fe} Such other or further order ar orders und/for direction or directions be issued ag to this Learned Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
3. Athearing, Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that while the applicant was working as a CBI Officer, a disciplinary proceeding was & ae 3. QA 343/2026 initiated against him and, on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority held the charges leveled against the applicant proved. Accordingly, a major penalty of removal was awarded against him vide order dated 09.09.2013 (annexed at Annexure-A/9 to the OA). Agegrieved by it, the applicant had submitted a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be decided on 30.04.2014 whereby the Appellate Authority was pleased to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction that, the charge officer/applicant should be given a personal hearing along with a Defence Assistant of his choice and thereafter take the view afresh, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and evidence placed on record.
Thereafter, on receipt of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the charged officer/applicant was granted opportunity for personal hearing, he was also allowed to engage a Defence Assistant, and, after considering the _ submission of applicant and his Defence Assistant, the Disciplinary Authority passed a fresh order dated 26.08.2014 concluding that he is still of the opinion that the charged officer/applicant had conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened the pravisions of Rule 3 (1)00 & (1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 r/w Rule 6 of DSPE (Subordinate Ranks) (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1961 and also reiterated his earlier order dated 09.09.2013.
It is contended by the applicant that the said order of Disciplinary Authority dated 26.08.2014 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28.02.2019 was forwarded and communicated vide letter dated 12.03.2019 (annexed at Annexure-A/12 to the QA). Learned Counsel for a fa' 4, , OA 343/2020 the applicant would vehemently submit that in compliance of the directions issued by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.04.2014, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order on 27.08.2014 reiterating his earlier view , Le., awarding major penalty upon the applicant which came to be supplied to the applicant only in the month of March, 2019. Hence, the statutory time period, to approach the Appellate Authority against the said decision, of 90 days under the provisions of Rule 17 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, was not met by the charged officer/applicant, and the applicant approached this Tribunal.
During the course of argument, Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that only because the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was served upon the applicant in 2019, the applicant could not approach the Appellate Authority within the prescribed limitation period, He submits that the applicant is willing to file statutory appeal if the delay be condoned. A Heard the Learned Counsel and perused the materials on record. As noted hereinabove, in compliance of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30.04.2014, the Disciplinary Authority after offering a personal hearing to the charged officer/applicant and his Defence Assistant, and after considering the points/grounds stated by the charged officer/applicant, passed an order dated 26/27.08.2014 whereby he has reiterated the conclusion arrived by him in original order dated 09.09.2013. in our considered view, if the applicant was aggrieved by it he should have filed a statutory appeal under Rule 17 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which also provide the power with the Appellate Authority to entertain 5. DA 3438/2020 the appeal even after the expiry of the limitation period, if the sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time has been established by the applicant, in the present case, the applicant herein aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 26/27.08.2014 which was supplied to him only in the month of March, 2019, Le, vide letter dated 12.03.2019 {annexed at Annexure-A/12 to the QA), had filed the present OA in the month of March, 2020, This Tribunal would deem it fit to dispose of this original application by granting liberty to the applicant to take appropriate legal recourses, as available under the Rules of filing statutory appeal, before the Appellate Authority. It is further directed upon the Appellate Authority to } ; consider such appeal, if received at their end, without any technical ground of delay since the applicant herein had filed this OA on receipt of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which remained pending before this _. Tribunal, We make it clear that Appellate Authority should consider such appeal in accordance with law and material on record and decide the same expeditiously, within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
5. With these directions, OA stands disposed of. No costs. ' } (Jayesh V. Bhairavia} Administyative Member Judicial Member si