Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Raja Mukherjee vs S E Railway on 23 January, 2019
;
i >vr.irt ^ ^f " ^jr ■■i?<' ^ j 1 aI ■t. e Before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench O.A. No3F>//5V?of 2018 In the matter of :
An application under Section 19 of the. Administrative Tribunal Act, i 1985;
And 6' In the matter of:
I Raj^ Mukherjee son of Late Sudhir Ranjan Mukherjee, residing at W.CV&A .^.uJqWuur ?? .0. ¥VV_ ..... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, through The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata - 700 043;
■
2. Divisional Railway Manager, f I ■ '' r.
Kharagpur Division, South Eastern lr'r.-v ■ft-: Railway, Kharagpur, PIN - 721301;
f
-
•I?-
} •S. I .4- >- • .
■;>^i ?
|
te
f
s
2
!
i
3. Chief Material Manager, South £ Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, r Kolkata - 700 043;
)
2 • r
» ■
i?!■
4. Deputy Chief Material Manager, s r k* General Stores Deport, South Eastern Radlway, Kharagpur, PIN -721301.
r 1 I r i n 5. Senior Materials Manager, ;»■ t Kft General Stores Depot, Office of the l I Deputy Chief Materials Manager, v
1.<• ■ Kharagpur ^721301; > s f 'I, & > f: l
6. Disciplinary Authority, General I ff Stores Department, South Eastern P u Railway, Kharagpur, PIN - 721301; i ■ ! V ft- I r.
ill
I 7. The Appellate Authority, Chief C.
'a
m- r-
•s Material Manager, South Eastern t!
u b
Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata - V-
V .
M 1.
V
2.
700 043; 6
h
Respondents
5
I?
$
®'- .. r.
r.
■ ;
?•
i
7 /
^ S'
-2-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH O.A/350/1547/2018 Date of Order: 23.01.2019 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. A.K Patnaik, Judicial Member Raja Mukherjee -vs- S.E Railway For the Applicant(s): Ms. T. Dasgupta, Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. K Bandyopadhyay, Counsel ORDERfORAU A.K Patnaik. Member (JL Heard Ms. T.Dasgupta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
* .* '♦
*s
&
2. Mr. M.K.Bandyopadhy|^ '.Counsel* .y appears for the South
MM
Eastern Railways, is jfesenFin (SO my ;t, Ms. Dasgupta has A served copy of the 0i asT i©t want the Official errjjesen ce Respondents to go •adlr nnextenso.
13. This O.A. has.oeen Admmistrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the foli^h " a) An order direct? >n^irSuthorities to set aside and/or quash the Show cause Notice issued by the respondent authority.
b) An order directing the Respondent Authorities to set aside and/or quash the Article of Charges and Punishment Notice issued by the respondent authority in favour of the applicant.
d) An order directing the respondent authority to dispose of the Appeal of the applicant expeditiously considering the facts and . circumstances and also the documentary evidence as envisaged in the r. present application
f) Further or other order or orders and/or direction or directions as to this Learned Tribunal may deem fit and proper. "
4. Ms. Dasgupta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, at the outset, submitted that after the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and punishment was awarded vide \kf> / /A / Q Annexure-A/6 dated 30.09.2016/01.10.2016 by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal under Annexure-A/7 dated 09.11.2016 and, as a substantial time elapsed but his appeal was not considered, he made another application to Respondent No;3 on 02.05.2018 but till date no response has been received. Therefore, Ms. Dasgupta submitted that the grievance of the applicant.
may be more or less satisfied if a direction is issued to Respondent No.3 to consider his appeal keeping in mind all the points raised in the appeal memo and communicate the result thereof in a well reasoned order within a specific time frame.
5. Mr. Bandhopadhyay, Ld.-Cpun^^ar^tKe^Sfficial Respondents, vehemently ^ - - - /l*. yStating that the scope of opposed the argument ,auv by 'asgup' interference in a disdiplmary pm very 44tevted and, when there is 4?
/ jS-
no lacuna, this TribpnaMacks tr inlhe matter.
C
Q> □
Having heard Counsemo
'it ' at j
6. 'ti mes, I dcrnoffthink that it will be
\ . N
prejudicial to either W me^si if the app isistated to be pending
consideration and which^ to be considered by the
x 11 i ii ~^
competent authority. Therefore^w/itJjoutgfu mto the merit of the matter, I
dispose of this O.A. directing Respondent No.3 to consider the appeal of the applicant dt. 09.11.2016, if the same has been preferred and is still pending consideration, as per rules governing the field and result thereof be communicated to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order: Although, I have not entered into the merit of the matter still then I hope t and trust that if the grievance of the applicant is found to be genuine then the Appellate Authority, i.e. Respondent No.3, will take necessary steps to modify/remove the punishment already imposed.
iT • 4 :r r--
( v!
~b>
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this O.A. stands disposed of.
No costs. .
8. As prayed for by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, copy of this order, along with paperbook be transmitted to Respondent No. 3, for which, he undertakes to deposit the cost with, the Registry within a week.
9. Copies of this order be handed over to the Ld. Counsel for the parties i Vv ..
(A.lC.Patnaik)
Member(J)
RK/PS
i r.
\t
■
*
*