Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Op vs Transcriber: Nandy on 2 February, 2022
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
02.02.2022 WPST 97 of 2021
Court
Item
: 04
: 54
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Matter
Status
: WPST
: OP
Vs.
Transcriber: nandy
Amarendra Kumar Singh & Anr.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Advocate
......for the Petitioner/State
Mr. D.N. Ray, Advocate
Mr. N. Ray, Advocate
Mr. G. Halder, Advocate
Mr. B. Nandy, Advocate
......for the Respondent
The disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent no. 1, herein was challenged before the Tribunal in OA 142 of 2019. The Tribunal found that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is contrary to the provisions of West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and, therefore, not only the chargesheet and enquiry report are liable to be quashed but the entire proceeding is vitiated. Thus the Tribunal quashed and set aside the chargesheet dated 25.04.2016, findings of the enquiry officer and the order dated 18.12.2018 inflicting final punishment. Further the State was directed to grant consequential benefit for the interregnum period.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/State submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the provisions of the Rules and misinterpreted the same in holding that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated. He further submits that 2 without exhausting the remedy provided therein, the approach could not have been made and, therefore, it is a fit case where the Court should pass an order of stay.
Mr. Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that after the impugned order, his client filed an independent tribunal application being OA 357 of 2020 for enforcement of the part of the impugned order where the petitioner herein was directed to grant consequential benefits for the interregnum period, which was allowed on 06.08.2021.
So far as the ultimate decision of setting aside of the disciplinary proceeding is concerned, the said order cannot be stayed as it would invite a situation prior to the date of passing the impugned order. Furthermore, so far as the consequential benefits to be extended to the respondent is concerned, an independent proceeding was initiated by the respondent which culminated into a final order. Therefore, it would not be proper at this stage to stay the operation of the said portion of the impugned order as it would have an impact on the final order in OA 357 of 2020 which has not been challenged as yet.
In view of the above, the prayer for stay is refused.
3However, the respondent is directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom.
The matter is made returnable after five weeks.
(Harish Tandon, J.) (Rabindranath Samanta, J.)