Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Ashish Kumar Santra & Anr on 7 November, 2013
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
07.11.13
19/akd
W.P.C.T. 395 of 2013
Union of India & Ors.
-Vs-
Shri Ashish Kumar Santra & Anr.
..........................................................................................
Mr. Rabindranath Pal, Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, Mr. Arpa Chakraborty ... ... for the respondent No. 1 This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3rd September, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal was pleased to quash the order dated 6th May, 2011 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Midnapur Division, Midnapur.
It has been specifically mentioned in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal that on the earlier occasion, this High Court while deciding another writ petition being W.P.C.T. 112 of 2012 specifically quashed the said order dated 6th May, 2011 passed by the authorities concerned. The relevant extracts from the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this court on 16th May, 2012 in W.P.C.T. 112 of 2012 are set out hereunder:
"So far as we are concerned, we are, for the reasons discussed above, of the view, that the 2 impugned order dated 6th May, 2011 is not sustainable in the eye of law. A so called error cannot be rectified after lapse of 8 years. The impugned order is, thus, set aside and quashed."
A Special Leave Petition was thereafter, filed on behalf of the Union of India and other authorities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 11577/2013 and the said Special Leave Petition was however, dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 8th July, 2013.
In view of the dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, the decision of this court regarding quashing of the order dated 6th May, 2011 became final.
The learned Tribunal, therefore, following the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this court was pleased to quash the impugned order dated 6th May, 2011 in respect of the applicant who is the respondent No. 1 herein.
Mr. Rabindranath Pal, learned Advocate representing the petitioners relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar reported in (2001) 4 SCC 309 and submits that the order dated 6th May, 2011 passed by the authority concerned cannot be held to be bad and therefore, the same should not have been quashed. The aforesaid decision, in our opinion, is not at all applicable in view of the 3 facts and circumstances of this case as mentioned hereinbefore.
Since the order passed earlier by this court has not been altered and/or interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the Special Leave Petition filed on behalf of the Union of India and other authorities, we find no scope to take a different view in this matter while considering the fate of the order dated 6th May, 2011 issued by the authorities concerned in respect of the respondent No. 1 herein.
Following the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this court passed in W.P.C.T. 112 of 2012, we also hold that the impugned order dated 6th May, 2011 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the learned Tribunal has rightly quashed the same following the earlier decision of this High Court.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error and/or infirmity in the decision of the learned Tribunal since the said learned Tribunal followed the order passed earlier by the Division Bench of this court which was not subsequently varied and/or altered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the Special Leave Petition preferred at the instance of the petitioners herein.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.
4
Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition as we do not find any merit in the same.
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking.
(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Samapti Chatterjee, J.)