Calcutta High Court
Narendra Kumar Tripathi vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 May, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar
W.P. No. 1861 of 2005
G.A. No. 1798 of 2006
Narendra Kumar Tripathi
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
For the Petitioner: Dr. Debi Pal, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharjee,
Ms. Debjani Ghosal,
Mr. Avra Majumdar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saptanghsu Basu,
Mr. Susanta Pal, Mr. Partha Basu, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Roy.
Judgment on : 15.05.2009.
S.P. Talukdar, J.: Impugned order dated 17/21st June, 2005, being Annexure-'P- 25' at page 224, is under challenge in the instant writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The factual backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:-
The petitioner at the time of filing of the application was working as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer, Hasdeo, South-Eastern Coalfield Limited. On 7th of February, 1997, he was served with a show cause notice under the signature of the Executive Director (Vigilance). Being clarified by the petitioner that the subject matter was not related to him, he was asked to ignore the said show cause notice. In pursuant to such ill intention and in a desperate bid to victimize the petitioner, the Vigilance Department of the respondent No. 4 drafted the Memorandum of Charges dated 21.10.1998 without consulting him in the preliminary enquiry. It was served under the signature of respondent No. 4 upon the petitioner with a proposal to hold an enquiry. The Articles of Charge reads as :-
"Being a Member of the Tender Committee which evaluated the offers of different tenderers in the Tender No. CGM(JA)/SO(E&M)/20/20289 dated 14.8.95 for dust suppression arrangement of coal stocks of Balanda Colliery, Shri Tripathi during January, 96, along with other members of the TC recommended to the competent authority for acceptance of the revised offer of M/s. SAMCO at 21% above the estimated rate, as reasonable, without properly analyzing the rates and such recommendation led to acceptance by the competent authority and subsequent work order on M/s. SAMCO has resulted in causing huge loss to the company."
The petitioner was directed to submit his statement of defence within 15 days of receipt of the said Memorandum. The charges levelled against the petitioner relate to an act, which allegedly took place 32 months back i.e., February, 1996 when the petitioner was functioning as Staff Officer (P&P) of Jagannath Area. The petitioner, thus, by his letter dated 29th October, 1998, requested the respondent No. 4 to provide him with complete set of records on the basis of which charges have been framed. By letter dated 7th of November, 1998, the General Manager, Vigilance, informed the petitioner that he would be allowed to inspect the documents only after he denies the charges levelled against him and the enquiry is started.
Being left with no choice, the petitioner filed his statement of defence on 20.11.1998 denying, inter alia, the charges levelled against him. Though the same was received, respondent No. 4 by letter dated 28th January, 1999 required the petitioner to submit statement of defence within 10 days. In response to the same, such petitioner again submitted a statement of defence on 1st February, 1999.
By an order dated 3rd March, 1999, the respondent No. 4 appointed Sri A.K. Tripathi, Chief General Manager (P&P), MCL, Burla as the Inquiry Authority to inquire into the charges levelled against him and Sri H.S. Pandey, Personal Manager (Vig), was appointed as Presenting Officer. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiring Authority on 26th April, 1999 for preliminary hearing. He as well as the other charged Officers appeared before the Inquiring Authority and denied the charges levelled. The enquiry proceeding proceeded on different dates. This was followed by submission of the enquiry report by the Inquiring Authority before the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner by his letter dated 13.8.1999 made a request for examination of some witnesses, but such request was turned down.
The Tender Committee comprised of Project Officer, Balanda Colliery, the Staff Officer (E&E) who was the technical (functional) head of the E & M department in the area, the Dy. Chief Finance Manager who was the head of the Finance Department and the petitioner who, as S.O. (P&P), was the junior most member of the Tender Committee. The Inquiring Authority after scrutinizing the entire evidence on record was satisfied that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved.
Respondent No. 4, being the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 28th August, 2000 differing from the finding of the Inquiring Authority, held that the charges against the petitioner had been fully proved. The said respondent communicated his observations on the findings along with the enquiry report to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to respond to the same within 7 days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.10.2000. The Disciplinary Authority chose to remain quiet. The petitioner submitted a representation on 15.12.2000 seeking early disposal of the departmental proceedings. This was followed by issuance of two reminders. Respondent No. 4 continued to remain silent till 18th April, 2001.
The Chief General Manager (Personnel), Coal India Limited, by order dated 1st of February, 2001 promoted the executives in the posts of Superintendents of Mines in E-5 Grade to the post of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer in M-1 Grade and thus, while promoting his batch mates, the petitioner was denied the same. By letter dated 6.2.2001, he submitted a representation. Even his junior, namely, Sri Mihir Chowdhury was promoted in the rank of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer w.e.f. 1.3.2001. His direct approach to the Chairman, ventilating his grievances, was disapproved by the concerned authorities. He was subsequently informed that he was not given promotion since it was not cleared from vigilance point of view.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., by letter dated 18th April, 2001 issued office order in exercise of power conferred on him in terms of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of the Coal India Limited, imposed penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in existing time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect from date of issue of the order. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 36 against such order 18th April, 2001 imposing thereby major penalty upon him. The Appellate Authority, being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd., by order dated 1st January, 2002 declined to interfere and/or modify the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority on the petitioner and thereby confirmed the penalty of "reduction of pay by one stage in the existing time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect". The petitioner challenged such order dated 1st of January, 2002, by filing a writ application being W.P. No. 1391 of 2002. By order dated 14th July, 2004, the learned Court disposed of the same thereby directing the authority concerned to proceed with the departmental proceedings from after the stage of receipt of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The order of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority were set aside by such order dated 14th July, 2004. The petitioner was, thereafter, asked to appear before respondent No. 4 for personal hearing. The only question that was placed before him, was "whether the decisions taken by the Tender Committee was individual or joint?" The petitioner replied to the same and submitted a representation dated 1st December, 2004.
Respondent No. 4, being the Disciplinary Authority, by letter dated 10th November, 2004, communicated the reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner on receipt of the same dated 10.11.2004 submitted his representation on 1.12.2004. The Disciplinary Authority, however, in a mechanical manner imposed the same penalty by an order dated 2nd March, 2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same on 1st April, 2005. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and without assigning any reasons imposed penalty which is reproduced hereunder:-
"Reduction of pay by one stage in the existing time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed on Sri N. K. Tripathi by the Disciplinary Authority. This order will be effective from the date of issue of the order of the Disciplinary Authority i.e. 02.03.2005. The appeal of Sri N. K. Tripathi dated 01.04.2005 stands disposed."
Both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority imposed penalty without any rational basis in an arbitrary and mala fide manner. Petitioner after proper application of mind recommended the lowest tenderer considering the urgency and the condition of the site. There was no other offer lower than the L-1 tenderer. There could be nothing on record indicating that the Tender Committee and the petitioner had any special reasons for favouring M/s. SAMCO, the lowest bidder nor any material to show that the respondent authorities could have selected a further 'lower bidder' for the same job under similar circumstances.
The petitioner by filing the writ application also claimed that the charges against him in the departmental proceeding are vague and lack material particulars. The allegations made in the charges could not amount to any misconduct and as such, the charges were liable to be quashed. The disciplinary authority proceeded with a closed mind. The petitioner was also not given reasonable opportunity and was further denied inspection of the documents, which were sought to have been relied upon by the respondent authorities.
In such facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed the application with the prayer for issuance of the writ of mandamus commanding thereby the respondents to act in accordance with law and to place the petitioner in the appropriate position at par with his batch mates and for further direction for release of appropriate scale of pay after exonerating the petitioner from the charges. The petitioner also sought for quashing of the order dated 17/21st June, 2005 issued by the Appellate Authority, being Annexure-'P-25' as well as other reliefs.
In response to this, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 contested the case by filing Affidavit-in- Opposition thereby denying all the material allegations made by the writ petitioner. Such respondents claimed that charge sheet was issued against the writ petitioner for contravention of Rule 4(i)(ii) and for alleged commission of misconduct in terms of Rules 5(5), 5(9) and 5(22) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of the Coal India Limited. The petitioner as a member of the Tender Committee along with other members recommended to the competent authority for acceptance of the revised offer of M/s. SAMCO at 21% above the estimated rate causing thereby huge loss to the company. The petitioner was given ample opportunity for submission of reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner was given opportunity for inspection of the documents in order to enable him to reply to the charge sheet. In response to his letter dated 29.10.1998, the General Manager by letter dated 7.11.1998 informed that as per Rule 29.3 of the CDA Rules, 1998, copies of the documents could be asked on denial of the charges and starting of enquiry. Petitioner was offered inspection of documents at Headquarters after making appointment with the General Manager. The Enquiring Authority requested the petitioner to appear for preliminary hearing on 26.4.1999 and subsequently after completion of enquiry submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 28.6.2000. The answering respondents further claimed that the report of the enquiring officer would reveal that the rate awarded to M/s. SAMCO was not reasonable. The disciplinary authority after recording reasons for disagreement communicated the said tentative finding to the petitioner for his comments and thereafter considering the reply of the petitioner affirmed his finding of disagreement. After imposition of the major penalty by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.5.2001 and the said authority upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The respondents specifically claimed that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority passed the respective orders strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The writ petitioner was given opportunity of hearing at all stages. There could be no mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities.
The respondents, thus, sought for dismissal of the writ application. In the Affidavit-in-Reply, the petitioner further reiterated that there had been total failure on the part of the respondent authority in appreciation of the fact that there could be no instance showing that any other tenderer was agreeable to execute the job at a rate lower than the rate accepted. The respondent authority had consulted other members of the Tender Committee in course of the preliminary enquiry but the petitioner was left out. This would indicate that such respondent authorities had different attitude towards him and this was reflected in the orders under challenge.
It appears from the materials available on record that the crux of the controversy relates to the recommendation made by the Tender Committee in connection with tender for dust suppression arrangement of Coal Stocks of Balanda Colliery. The petitioner was one of the members of the Tender Committee. The Project Officer, Balanda Colliery was in charge of the said Committee. The Staff Officer (E & M) was the technical head. The Deputy Chief Finance Manager was another member and the petitioner being the Staff Officer (P&P) was the junior most member of such committee. The Tender Committee evaluated offers of different tenderer and selected the lowest tenderer M/s. SAMCO whose original rate was 37% high above the estimated rate. The Tender Committee brought down the rate at 21% high above the estimated rate and thereafter recommended the rate as reasonable and that was done keeping in mind the urgency of the work and site condition.
The competent authority accepted the recommendation of the Tender Committee which, of course, included the petitioner and work order was issued in favour of M/s. SAMCO. On 21st October, 1998, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited proposed to hold enquiry against the petitioner on the following charge :-
"Being a Member of the Tender Committee which evaluated the offers of different tenderers in the Tender No. CGM(JA)/SO(E&M)/20/20289 dated 14.8.95 for dust suppression arrangement of coal stocks of Balanda Colliery, Sri Tripathi during January, 96, along with other members of the TC recommended to the competent authority for acceptance of the revised offer of M/s. SAMCO at 21% above the estimated rate, as reasonable, without properly analyzing the rates and such recommendation led to acceptance by the competent authority and subsequent work order on M/s. SAMCO has resulted in causing huge loss to the company.
Thus Sri Tripathi contravened Rule 4.1(ii) and thereby committed misconduct in terms of Rule 5(5), 5(9) and 5(22) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of CIL."
Dr. Debi Pal, appearing as learned Counsel for the writ petitioner while inviting attention of the Court to such Article of Charge, submitted that the same does not refer to the rate or the extent of loss. He specifically mentioned that the area under consideration is a rocky area requiring dust suppression arrangement. Dr. Pal contended that the Committee merely recommended and it was for the authority concerned to take appropriate decision. It appears that the writ petitioner submitted the statement of defence in reference to the Memorandum dated 21st October, 1998. He tried to justify his reasons considering the urgency of the work and the site condition.
Dr. Pal invited attention of the Court to the fact that the writ petitioner was found not guilty by the enquiring authority and that strangely enough, the disciplinary authority without assigning any reason disagreed and came to a different finding. In course of submission, Dr. Pal referred to the evidence of some of the management witnesses. Referring to the evidence of management witness No. 4, it was submitted that the estimated rate was prepared by the respondent without even visiting the site.
Reference was made to the evidence of management witness Nos. 3 and 5 while submitting that the estimate for Jagannath area was prepared on 19.5.1995 on the basis of approved rates of Ananta Colliery dated 11.11.1993. In 1993 rate for Ananta Colliery was Rs. 3,72,900/- and that for Janannath area in June, 1995 was Rs.4,51,209/. Thus, there is a difference of Rs. 78,309/-. He submitted that the management witness was not at all aware as to whether work under question was linked with Civil Engineering or Electrical Engineering. Reference was made to the minimum wages as on 1.10.93 i.e., the base period of the estimate and 1.10.95 as to be awarded, as prescribed by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). The same is placed in a chart as follows:-
Category On 1.10.93 On 1.10.95 % Increase
in Rs. in Rs.
Unskilled 20.72 31.98 54.34%
Semi-skilled 26.45 38.86 46.91%
Skilled/Clerical 34.83 49.18 41.20%
It was emphatically submitted by Dr. Pal that the respondent authority could not produce a single tenderer who was agreeable to execute the work at a rate lower than the rate commended by the Tender Committee. It was further submitted that there was no material on record that the petitioner could have had any special reason for doing any favour to the lower bidder. It appears that the enquiring authority observed that 'as such, this charge is not proved against Sri Tripathi'.
On 28th January, 2000, the disciplinary authority communicated copy of the enquiry report along with his disagreement with the findings of the inquiring authority though there could be no reason to justify such disagreement. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiring authority based on the estimated rates, i.e., Exhibits 1 to 9 which are Ex-CPWD rates only. The petitioner submitted a representation on 10th October, 2000, but the disciplinary authority chose to ignore the same till 18th April, 2001.
According to Dr. Pal, the respondent authority in a designed and calculated manner proceeded with giving promotion to the batch mates of the writ petitioner from the posts of Superintendents of Mines in E-5 Grade to the post of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer in M-1 Grade. This was done on 1st February, 2001 and the claim of the petitioner was not taken into consideration on the plea of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding.
On 18th April, 2001, the disciplinary authority issued order imposing major penalty of 'reduction of pay by one stage in the existing time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect on the petitioner from the date of issue of the order'. No reason was assigned for coming to different findings. An appeal was preferred on 15th May, 2001. By order dated 1st January, 2002, the appellate authority confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. In response to a writ application filed by the writ petitioner, the learned Court by order dated 14th July, 2004 directed the respondent authority to proceed from the stage of receipt of the report submitted by the enquiry officer.
The disciplinary authority by order dated 2nd March, 2005, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, came to the identical finding and the penalty that was imposed earlier was inflicted. It was ordered that 'since Sri Tripathi has already undergone the aforesaid penalty w.e.f. 18.4.2001 for the same charges, this order will have retrospective effect from that date i.e. 18.4.2001.' The order of the disciplinary authority did not reflect any proper and effective application of mind. In response to the statutory appeal filed by the writ petitioner on 1st April, 2005, the appellate authority disposed of the same by order dated 21st June, 2005 which is again a clear reflection of non-application of mind. It was directed that the order of the appellate authority would be effective from the date of issue of the order of the disciplinary authority.
Dr. Debi Pal, appearing as learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that though ordinarily, scope of judicial review is limited, the Court can very well interfere with the findings of fact when there is no material for the conclusion arrived at by the concerned authority or that on materials, the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man. In this context he referred to the decision in the case of Syed Rahimuddin Vs. Director General, C.S.I.R. & Ors. as reported in 2001 (4) Supreme 396.
He submitted that the requirement of indicating reasons for arriving at a conclusion has been judicially recognized as imperative. Dr. Pal referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain, as reported in 2008(2) Supreme 133 in this context.
Referring to the decision in the case between State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Negi, as reported 2008 (2) Supreme 527, it was submitted that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless.
Dr. Pal invited attention of the Court to the materials on record in support of his contention that there was no offer lower than the L-1 tenderer for the said assignment nor the management could produce any bidder other than M/s. SAMCO to whom the work order was awarded. It was categorically submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any special reasons for favouring the L-1 tenderer M/s. SAMCO. In this context, reference was made to the decision in the case between Bhagwati Prasad Dubey Vs. The Food Corporation of India, as reported in AIR 1988 SC 434. Dr. Pal in this context submitted that the writ petitioner could at best be accused of an error of judgment.
It was further submitted that in the impugned order, not a single reason has been assigned as to why the evidence produced by the writ petitioner did not appeal to the said authority or that it was not credit-worthy. Dr. Pal then added that the concerned authority did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the writ petitioner. In the case of Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors., as reported in AIR 1985 SC1121, it had been held that an enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion.
Dr. Pal deriving inspiration from the decision in the case of D. V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors., as reported in AIR 1990 SC 1923, submitted that there is need for recording a finding either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that there had been grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of duty.
Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner while submitting that the petitioner could at best be accused of an error of judgment relied upon the decision in the case between State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, as reported in AIR 1992 SC 2188.
In course of submission Dr. Pal categorically mentioned that in absence of any specific allegation of personal motive or that the writ petitioner derived any personal benefit, there could hardly be any justification for the concerned authority to find the petitioner guilty. Then again, it was submitted that the nature of punishment inflicted on the petitioner was rather in the nature of 'double jeopardy'. Inviting attention of the Court to the charge against the writ petitioner, it was submitted that it does not indicate the rate or the loss suffered by the company, if any at all.
Having regard to the area under reference which is a rocky area desperately requiring dust suppression arrangement, it was submitted that there had been misappreciation of the materials and non-consideration of the fact that the committee merely recommends and decision is taken by the authority.
On the other hand, Mr. Saptangshu Basu, appearing as learned Counsel for the respondent authority, submitted that the plea of double jeopardy was neither pleaded nor established. He wondered as to how there could be any double punishment at all. Mr. Basu then submitted that in absence of any impropriety or illegality in the decision making process, the writ Court is not ordinarily expected to interfere. While responding to the grievance that copy of certain documents or materials were not supplied, it was contended that copies of the documents and materials, which were supplied, were only sought to have been relied upon.
Mr. Basu on behalf of the respondent authority submitted that while dealing with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not permitted to reappreciate the evidence or re-evaluate of the materials. According to him, the writ petitioner did not plead that there had been any violation of the principles of natural justice. The fact that he was only one and that too, an alleged insignificant member of the committee, could not be a satisfactory explanation. Mr. Basu further submitted that there is no allegation that the materials on record were not considered or that there had been consideration of something, which is not on record. It was then submitted that there is no specific pleading of any infringement of any rules/regulations.
So far the nature and quantum of punishment is concerned, referring to the decision in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia, as reported in (2007) 7 SCC 257, it was submitted that interference is only permissible when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
No doubt, there cannot be any judicial review against a decision but it is only against the decision making process. Deriving support and strength from the decision in the case of Bank of India & Ors. Vs. T. Jogram, as reported in (2007) 7 SCC 236, it was submitted by Mr. Basu that even an allegation of mala fide or violation of the principles of natural justice must be based on factual matrix and not conjectures and surmises. He further submitted that any failure to supply documents as required by delinquent official, does not necessarily result in violation of the principles of natural justice unless it is shown that as a result, prejudice was caused to the delinquent.
There can be no dispute that judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a review of the decision making process and not of the decision itself. It is well settled that High Court cannot reappreciate the primary or perceptive facts found by the fact finding authority under statute. This Court while dealing with the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot assume appellate jurisdiction and reappreciate the primary or perceptive facts found by the fact finding authority. (Ref: H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal & Ors., 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312).
Mr. Basu further submitted that a finding cannot be characterized as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials if it is a reasonable inference from proved facts. In this context, Mr. Basu referred to the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur, as replrted in (1972) 4 SCC 618.
While responding to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there could at best be an error of judgment, Mr. Basu submitted that the petitioner virtually admitted that he did not apply mind and if this does not amount to misconduct, what it could be ?
It was the emphatic assertion on the part of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that there had been utter failure on the part of the respondent authority in appreciating the fact that the alleged lapse for which the petitioner was charged could at best be an error of judgment and by no stretch of imagination could be said to be a misconduct.
Rule 5 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules deal with misconduct. It lays down that without prejudice to the generality of the terms 'misconduct', acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests or image of the company would also be treated as misconduct. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 5 further mentions that 'neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty including malingering or slowing down of work' would also be treated as misconduct.
It cannot be disputed that the writ petitioner was one of the four members of the committee and the job of the committee was over after the recommendation was made. But this by itself cannot dilute the charge against the present petitioner.
In the present case, it is difficult to brush aside the specific stand of the respondent authority that there had been such lapse in the performance of the writ petitioner that it was nothing short of 'misconduct' on his part.
As discussed earlier, it is neither possible nor permissible for this Court to measure the materials/evidence on record with a coffee spoon. It, however, does not appear that the concerned authority did not choose to take into consideration any material fact while arriving at a conclusion nor that any material which was not with the record, was taken into consideration.
Thus, the order of the disciplinary authority under challenge does not appear to suffer from any perversity in that regard. No such concrete instance, to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court, could be established so as to indicate that there had been any violation of the principles of natural justice. It cannot be said that there had been any such procedure adopted by the respondent authority, which could even remotely cause any prejudice. He was given opportunity to present himself at every stage. The disciplinary authority quite satisfactorily explained the reason for not agreeing with the finding of the enquiry authority. The Appellate Authority by order dated 17/21st June, 2005 affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority dated 2nd of March, 2005.
After careful consideration of the said orders, I do not find any sufficient reason for interference and the said orders certainly pass the test of judicial scrutiny.
So far the quantum of punishment is concerned, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to justify any interference.
Accordingly, the present writ application being W.P. No. 1861 of 2005 be dismissed on contest. Consequently, this disposes of the application being G.A. No. 1798 of 2006. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There is no order as to costs.
Xerox certified copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible.
(S.P. Talukdar, J.)