Calcutta High Court
Rampher Missir vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 June, 2008
ORDER SHEET
W.P. No.485 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
RAMPHER MISSIR.
-Versus-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Mr. Partha Chakraborty with Ms. Sudeshna Basu
Thakur, Advocates,
...for the writ petitioner.
Mr. R.N. Majumdar with Ms. Rupa Mukherjee,
Advocates,
...for the respondents.
Before The Hon'ble Justice SAILENDRA PRASAD TALUKDAR 19.06.2008 Heard Mr. Chakraborty, as the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. Majumdar, as the learned Counsel for the respondent authorities By filing the instant writ application, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the entire retiral benefit of the writ petitioner as well as for other reliefs.
The present case has a rather strange background. The petitioner, while in service, was implicated in a criminal case for the offences which included an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The respondent authority initiated disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner. It is claimed on behalf of the writ petitioner that he could not get sufficient opportunity 2 to contest the said disciplinary proceeding since he was in custody at the relevant time. The said proceeding ended with the finding 'guilt', as against the writ petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the writ petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No.2002(W) of 2000. The said case is reportedly pending.
For reasons best known to the petitioner, a fresh application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the reliefs as mentioned hereinbefore.
Mr. Majumdar is perfectly justified in pointing out that the question of settlement of retiral benefit can hardly arise unless and until the said writ application, whereby the order of dismissal has been challenged, is disposed of. He is further right in mentioning that with the order of dismissal in force, the respondent authority cannot settle the retiral benefit. But it can, at best, process the terminal benefit.
Be that as it may, I find hardly any justification for the writ petitioner to proceed with the instant application which, in fact, cannot be adjudicated unless and until the earlier writ petition is decided.
Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, at this stage, submits that in that event, the present application need not be proceeded with.
The same accordingly stands dismissed.
This is, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Needless to add that the writ petitioner has the liberty to file appropriate application seeking the reliefs, as sought for in the present writ application in the pending case, that is, W.P. No.2002 (W) of 2000.
Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the writ petitioner, be kept with the record. 3 The said case being W.P. No.2002(W) of 2000 may be listed in the Appellate Side list under the heading 'To be Mentioned' on 25th June, 2008.
Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SAILENDRA PRASAD TALUKDAR, J.) K.Banerjee R.O.(Ct.)