Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dharam Raj vs A & N Admin on 18 February, 2026
1 OA 351/1053/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A. 351/1053/2018 Date of Hearing: 14/11/2025
Date of Order: 18/02/2026
Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
IN THE MATTER OF:
DHARAM RAJ, son of Late Y. Narsha Murthy, residing at
Rangachang, Bedonabad, Port Blair-744105, dismissal from
service while working as Protocol Officer in the Secretariat, A
& N Administration of Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
Port Blair-744101.
...Applicant
-VERSUS-
1. THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, Andaman & Nicobar
Islands, Raj Niwas, Port Blair-744101
2. THE ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION,
service through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Port Blair-
744101.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, the Andaman & Nicobar
Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair- 744101
4. THE SECRETARY (PERSONNEL), the Andaman &
Nicobar Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair-744101.
...Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. P.C. Das, Ms. T. Maity; Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S.C Misra; Counsel
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2 OA 351/1053/2018
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Member (A):
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,for the following reliefs: -
"a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned Memorandum of Charge-Sheet dated 21st July, 2016 which has been issued by the Secretary (Personnel), Andaman & Nicobar Administration who is not competent authority to issue such memo of charge-sheet as per the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and who is not the Appointment Authority of the present applicant being Annexure A-6 of this original application.
b) To quash and/or set aside the another impugned memorandum of charge-sheet dated 24th August, 2017 issued by the Secretary (Personnel), Andaman & Nicobar Administration by disclosing one article of charges without cancelling the earlier Memorandum of Charge-Sheet dated 21 July, 2016 issued by an incompetent authority being Annexure A-7 of this original application which is clearly against the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965;
c) To quash and/or set aside the impugned ex-parte Enquiry Report dated 12.12.2017 submitted by the so-called Enquiry Officer which was forwarded to the applicant vide office memos dated 1st February. 2018 and 27th February, 2018 being Annexure A-15 of this original application.
d) To quash and/or set aside the impugned penalty order of dismissal from service against the applicant vide office order No. 1349 dated 16th May, 2018 issued by the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration by violation of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and by violation of the solemn order passed by this Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair and when the issue was pending before the Hon'ble High Court to circumvent and to frustrate the grievances of the applicant, such major penalty punishment has been issued against the applicant which is absolutely against the law of the land being Annexure A-19 of this original application.
e) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority particularly the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands to allow the statutory appeal preferred by the applicant by setting aside and/or quashing the impugned penalty order of dismissal from service against the applicant vide office order No. 1349 dated 16th May, 2018 issued by the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration and the applicant be reinstated in service forthwith along with all consequential benefits;
f) To declare that the entire proceeding which has been initiated by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration from the stage of issuing of charge-
sheet to imposing major penalty punishment of dismissal from service against the applicant is bad in law and illegal and violation of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 because as an incompetent authority, the Secretary (Personnel) who has no power to issue the charge-sheet has issued the charge-sheet and the Chief Secretary acting as a Disciplinary Authority has issued the major penalty punishment of dismissal from service although he has not issued the charge-sheet and the allegations of the charge-sheet cannot be allowed when the judicial proceeding is pending before the appropriate court of law;
g) To declare that the entire major penalty punishment proceeding initiated by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration against the present applicant when the judicial proceeding is pending before the appropriate Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 OA 351/1053/2018 court of law is otherwise bad in law and illegal and your applicant shall give all benefits by setting aside and/or quashing the charge-sheet including ex-parte enquiry report and also major penalty punishment of dismissal from service against the applicant;
h) To quash and/or set aside the impugned order of Appellate Authority being No. 2598 dated 7th /6th August, 2018 issued by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands acting as an Appellate Authority by rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the applicant dated 20.06.2018 after the interim order granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 3rd August, 2018 which is absolutely bad in law and illegal being Annexure A-30 of the original application."
2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The applicant joined as LGC in A&N Amalgamated Clerical Cadre vide order dated 09.04.1990 in the Civil Supplies Department, Port Blair. He was posted in Protocol Section of the Secretariat in diverted capacity vide order dated 02.08.2010 against one post of LGC transferred. He was promoted to the post of Inspector (W&M), Group-'B' Non-Gazetted in Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, with effect from 08.07.2006. He was ordered to look after the charges of Protocol Officer in addition to his own duties in the Civil Supplies department without any extra remuneration. One Raj Kumar challenged the appointment of the Applicant to the post of Inspector before Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 023 of 2012. Hon'ble High court by order dated 17.07.2012 set aside the appointment order 842 dated 31.05.2011. The applicant herein appealed before the Division Bench of High Court in MAT No. 36 of 2012. The Civil Supplies Department also appealed against this order in MAT No. 39 of 2012. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its common order dated 29.11.2012. A Review Petition against the Hon'ble High Court's order was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2013.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 OA 351/1053/2018 The applicant's appointment in the post of Inspector (W&M) was cancelled and he was repatriated to his parent department as LGC. The applicant did not report for duty as LGC and he continued to look after the additional duties of Protocol Officer. The applicant filed an SLP bearing No. 13884-13885 of 2013 before Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging Hon'ble High Court order dated 29.11.20212 quashing his appointment as Inspector (W&M). The said SLP was later dismissed as withdrawn. On grant of liberty, the applicant herein filed a review application No. 006 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court, Which was disposed of with the direction to grant a suitable appointment to which his duties as Protocol Officer can be attached and to pay his salary for last three months during which he discharged the duties of Protocol Officer. The applicant was then appointed under GA Section of Secretariat Establishment vide order dated 02.12.2013. A&N Administration vide order dated 26.12.2014 treated the period of service rendered by the applicant from 29.09.2009 to 24.07.2013 as Protocol Officer on deputation and approved his absorption in the post w.e.f. 25.07.2013.
One Akshay Pant challenged his appointment as Protocol Officer on ad-hoc basis before the Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, vide its order dated 18.03.2016 in WP No. 047 of 2016 set aside the impugned order of the applicant's ad-hoc appointment and extension as Protocol officer and also the impugned order of regularization. In pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 18.03.2016, the Administration vide Order dated 04.04.2016, relieved the applicant herein from the post of Protocol Officer. The applicant filed WPCT 054 of 2016 with MAT No. 019 of 2016 before Division Bench of High Court challenging Single Bench Order dated 18.03.2016. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court vide its interim order dated 08.04.2016 directed that the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 OA 351/1053/2018 applicant herein shall be permitted to function as LGC being his parent posting by the Administration till the appeal is heard and disposed of.
The applicant in the meantime filed SLP (Civil) No. 13392-13393/2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 08.04.2016, the applicant was posted as LGC in the O/o PPCF, Van Sadan, Haddo vide Admn's order dated 04.05.2016. But he did not join as LGC in the o/o PCCF. The applicant intimated that he has been advised by the doctor to take long rest and requested to withdraw the orders till a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant also submitted an application dated 10.05.2016 intimating that he is proceeding to mainland for further check- up as per the advice of concerned doctor. Administration vide memo dated 13/05/2016 directed him to first join in the office of the PCCF and seek leave and permission from respective HOD. The applicant did not join the office of PCCF as LGC. He was served with a Show-Cause Notice dated 26.05.2016. The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court vide its order dated 13.06.2016, in CAN No.054 and MAT No.019 of 2016 set aside the judgement dated 18.03.2016 of the Single Bench and sent the writ petition back to the writ court for reconsideration with a further direction that the applicant should be posted as LGC being his parent posting.
The applicant submitted his duty report as Protocol Officer vide application dated 17.06.2016 addressed to DS (Perl) enclosing medical certificates and fitness certificates. The application was returned to him with the direction to report for duty as LGC to the o/o PCCF vide Memo dated 25.06.2016. The applicant did not join in the o/o PCCF. A Charge sheet was issued to the applicant vide Memo dated 21.07.2016. The applicant vide his letter dated 17/10/2016 Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 OA 351/1053/2018 requested to cancel/withdraw the said charge sheet on the ground that his appointment and regularization of protocol officer is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. The said representation was rejected vide Memo dated 02.11.2016. Hon'ble Single Bench of High Court by its order in WPCT 47/2018 dated 13/01/2017 directed the Respondent no. 1 and 2 to remove the Respondent no. 6(The applicant herein) from the post of Protocol Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of the order and quashed the Admn's order dated 02.12.2013 and Order dated 26.12.2014 promoting the applicant to the post of Protocol Officer. As per this order the applicant was to be posted as LGC in Civil Supplies Department within 10 days. The applicant was removed from the post of Protocol Officer vide Admn's order dated 21.01.2017.
Applicant appealed against the said order before the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court claiming that there is some wrong recording in the judgement. The Division Bench permitted the applicant to approach the Single Judge. Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 27.04.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Applicant challenged orders passed by the Single Bench dated 13.01.2017 and 27.04.2017 before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High court. The Mandamus Appeal and stay application against the above judgement dated 13.01.2017 was dismissed by the court vide order dated 06.07.2017. Another charge memo dated 24.08.2017 was issued to the applicant for not complying with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court.
The applicant submitted a representation against the charge memo dated 24.08.2017. An inquiry officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed to inquire in to the charges levelled against the applicant. The applicant filed a review application bearing No.RVW 286 of 2017 in the Hon'ble High Court to Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 OA 351/1053/2018 review the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CAN No.5231 of 2017 with MAT No.047 of 2016.
The applicant did not participate in the inquiry which was held ex-parte. Disciplinary authority passed an order No. 1349 dated 16.05.2018 and imposed a major penalty of "dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government". The applicant submitted an appeal dated 20.06.2018 to the Appellate Authority against the said dismissal order. He also filed this OA bearing No.351/1053/2018 before this Tribunal.
The Appellate Authority dismissed and disposed of the appeal of the applicant vide Order No.2598 dated 7th August 2018. The Tribunal passed an order on 03.08.2018 by which the penalty order (1349 dated 16.05.2018) was stayed till disposal of the OA and granted liberty to the applicant to join the parent department in compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.047 of 2016 subject to the outcome of the present OA as well as of CAN No. 12295/2017. The respondents filed WPCT No. 233 of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court on 07.09.2018 challenging the order of 03.08.2018 passed by the Tribunal.
Pursuant to the leave granted by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.09.2018 in WPCT No.233 of 2018 an MA No.351/715/2018 was filed by the respondents challenging the maintainability of the OA on the ground that it was filed without exhausting all available administrative remedies. Tribunal dismissed MA No.715/2018 vide its order dated 26.09.2018 stating that the statutory appeal filed by the applicant with the Appellate Authority was already Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 OA 351/1053/2018 disposed of on 06/07.08.2018, prior to obtaining the leave from the Hon'ble High Court to file the MA. A writ petition No.271 of 2018 was filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order dated 26.09.2018 of the tribunal. A Miscellaneous Application No.351/00763 of 2018 of the applicant for amendment of the OA was allowed by order dated 18.2.2019 of the tribunal.
Respondent filed a WPCT No.112 of 2019 challenging the tribunal's order dated 18.02.2019 and 14.03.2019. Hon'ble High Court set aside the Tribunal's impugned order dated 18.02.2019 and remanded back the case to the tribunal. MA No.351/763 of 2018 arising out of OA No.351/1053/2018 was heard by the Tribunal on 19.07.2019 and on 26.05.2020 the following order was passed:
"The Appellate Authority has already passed its order and the Hon'ble High Court has held the "there was no impediment and fetter on the part of the Lieutenant Governor to proceed with the statutory appeal and bring the same to its logical end", we find no reason to dismiss the O.A on the ground as put forth by the respondents in regard to maintainability of the O.A due to the pendency of the appeal Hence we permit the respondents to file their affidavit/reply to the O.A as expeditiously as possible and before the next date of hearing. Let rejoinder be filed within two weeks of reply. List the mater for further hearing on 14.07.2020".
Respondents filed WP No.36/2020 with CAN No.4235 of 2020 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta challenging the tribunal's Order dated 26.05.2020 on 26.08.2020. Hon'ble High Court passed the following orders in WPCT 36/2020:-
"We dispose of this writ application by observing that the point of maintainability raised by the respondents (the writ petitioners herein) before the tribunal shall be considered by it as a preliminary issue before proceeding to dispose of the matter of even passing any interim order. It will be open to the writ petitioners to make an application to set aside any amendment allowed by the tribunal which application shall be considered by it in accordance with law before proceeding further, post- making of the said application." Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 OA 351/1053/2018 Two Miscellaneous Applications bearing No.42/2021 and 44/221 were filed on 18.01.2021 before the Tribunal in OA No.351/1053/2018. The final hearing in OA No.351/01053/2018 with MA No.351/00043/2021, MA 351/00250/2019, MA No.51/00044/2021 was held on 25.07.2022. The OA and the MAs were disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 25.07.2022 with the following orders:-
"11. Despite a clear observation of the Hon'ble High Court asking the applicant to join as LGC in Civil Supplies, the respondents had offered him a post in Forest Department under PCCF, Haddo which itself was in violation of the Hon'ble High Court's order. It was the respondents who were at fault having violated solemn direction of Hon'ble High Court. As such the order was not required to be obeyed. The orders were thus challenged and rightly so. There is apparently no misconduct on the part of the applicant as the applicant was not required to carry out an administrative order which itself was issued in violation of a solemn direction of the Hon'ble High Court. The charge sheets were thus actuated with malice, the allegations were irrational and unreasonable.
12. Hence, the allegations in the chargesheets being an outcome of unreasonableness, irrationality and malice, the chargesheets that were stayed by our order dated 26.5.2020 are quashed. The consequent penalty order dated 6.5.2018 due to the same reason deserves to be quashed, and is hence quashed."
13.The respondents having deliberately prevented the applicant from joining the post of LGC in Civil Supplies Department in terms of Hon'ble High Court's Judgement (Supra), cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of their own wrong. The respondents are therefore directed to deem the applicant to have joined the Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs against the post of LGC, w.e.f. 13.01.2017 (10 days from the order dated 03.01.2017 allowing him consequential benefits, seniority and his career advancements in accordance with law."
Respondents challenged the order dated 25.07.2022 in WPCT No.28 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dated 20.12.2022 in WPCT No. 28 of 2022 wherein the Order dated 25.07.2022 in OA No.351/105/2018 was stayed. The Hon'ble High Court passed an order dated 19.10.2023 wherein the case was remanded back to the Tribunal for re-evaluation and further deliberation in the light of all relevant legal and factual consideration.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 OA 351/1053/2018 The matter was heard accordingly and reserved for orders on 14/11/2025.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that during pendency of the case regarding his promotion as Protocol Officer, the Administration issued a notice against the applicant to show cause why action will not be taken against the applicant for not joining a lower post of LGC in the forest department. This memo was issued by an incompetent authority as per the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 as he is not the appointing authority of the applicant. Subsequently Secretary (Personnel), Andaman & Nicobar Administration who is not a competent authority as per the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 issued the impugned Memorandum of Charge-Sheet dated 21st July, 2016. The applicant's Appointing Authority is the Chief Secretary of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration. Only he can act as Disciplinary Authority to issue the memorandum of charges as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 but in the present case, an incompetent authority who is lower in rank than the Chief Secretary issued memorandum of charges to the applicant. The applicant cannot join the post of Lower Grade Clerk in the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as the applicant's LGC post has been transferred from the Department of Tourism to the Protocol Department, but his original post of Inspector Weights and Measures in the Protocol Department has not been set aside. Without issuing such order, the Administration forced the applicant to join in the lower post.
Therefore, the Article of Charges is absolutely vague and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Without cancelling the same, another charge-sheet has been issued by the Secretary (Personnel), Andaman & Nicobar Administration on 24th August, 2017 by disclosing one article of charges without cancelling the earlier Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 21st July, 2016 in violation of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The applicant vide his representation dated 12.10.2017 Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 OA 351/1053/2018 communicated to the Enquiry Officer that he is unable to cooperate with the inquiry officer because his matter was pending before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He requested the Inquiry Officer not to proceed with the enquiry proceeding till the decision is finalized by the appropriate court of law. The respondent authority hurriedly and hastily without considering such legal notice, by way of ex-parte proceeding, issued an Enquiry Report on 12.12.2017. In this proceeding, a charge-sheet has been issued by the incompetent authority i.e. the Secretary (Personnel) and the capital punishment has been issued by the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which is not at all sustainable in the eye of law.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the said matter was heard at length by this Tribunal on 3rd August, 2018 and after hearing, Tribunal granted an interim order staying the penalty order till disposal of the OA and the applicant was granted liberty to join the "parent department" in compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 047/2016 subject to the outcome of the present OA as well as CAN No. 12295/2017. Even after interim order granted by this Tribunal, the respondent did not allow the applicant to resume duty in his parent cadre and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant vide order No. 2598 dated 7th/6th August, 2018 and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority against the applicant in respect of penalty order of dismissal from service. Once the penalty order of dismissal from service is stayed by this Tribunal under section 24 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Appellate Authority is not empowered to pass the order dated 7th/6th August, 2018. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Hon'ble High court at Calcutta did not interfere with the stay granted by this Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 12 OA 351/1053/2018 Hon'ble Tribunal so far as the stay of penalty order of dismissal from service of the applicant is concerned.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as per Gazette Notification No. 28 dated 12.02.2009, the Secretary Personnel is the appointing authority for the post of Lower Grade Clerk of Amalgamated Clerical Cadre, A & N Administration and he is competent to issue Memo of Charge sheet. As per Gazette Notification No. 28 dated 12.02.2009, Chief Secretary, A & N Administration is the competent authority to impose all penalties upon the employees of AC cadre of A & N Administration including Lower Grade Clerks.
A & N Administration never violated any solemn order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble High Court vide its interim order dated 08.04.2016 directed that "The applicant herein (Shri Dharam Raj) shall be permitted to function as LGC being his parent posting by the Administration till the appeal is being heard and disposed of". In compliance of order dated 08.04.2016, the applicant herein (Shri Dharam Raj) was permitted to function as LGC and posted in the O/o PCCF, Van Sadan, Haddo vide order dated 04.05.2016 and relieved vide order No. 1524 dated 05.05.2016. But he did not join as LGC in the O/o PCCF. The applicant while acknowledging the receipt of order intimated that "he has been advised by the doctor to take long rest and requested to withdraw the orders till a decision is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme court as well as the High Court. Further, he submitted application intimating that he is proceeding to mainland for further check-up as per the advice of concerned doctor. After examining his application dated 10.05.2016, Administration directed him to first join in the office of the PCCF and seek leave and permission from the respective HOD. Since, he submitted his application without any supporting documents he was served with Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 13 OA 351/1053/2018 a Show Cause Notice dated 26.05.2016 by the competent authority. A clerical staff can be posted to any office/department in the respective post(s) in the concerned office/department. His appointment to the post of Inspector (W & M) had already been quashed by the Hon'ble Court and the applicant had been repartriated to his parent post i.e. LGC of Amalgamated Clerical cadre under A & N Administration vide CS and CA's order NO. 1157 dated 24.07.2013. The Article of charges are not vague and have been proved. It is not against HC's order dated 08.04.2016 passed in MAT No.019 of 2016. The appointment of the applicant herein (Shri Dharam Raj) to the post of Protocol Officer was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.
The applicant submitted an application intimating that he is ill and further intimated that he is proceeding to Mainland for checkup and requested headquarter leaving permission. Since he had not submitted any medical prescription/certificate of the respective doctor, he was directed to report for duty first to the place of posting and then seek headquarter's leaving permission from the respective HOD but he did not do so. He was willfully absenting himself from duty. Hence a show cause notice was issued to him to explain why his absence of duty should not be treated as an unauthorized one and disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. He submitted his reply stating that MAT filed by him was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 13.06.2016 by setting aside the order dated 18/03/2016 and sending the writ petition back to the writ court for reconsideration. However, the court in its order dated 13/06/2016 also directed that "during the pendency of writ petition, the interim arrangement which was made by the other Division Bench of this court on 08.04.2016 will continue till the disposal of writ petition." Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
14 OA 351/1053/2018 The applicant after the above order submitted his duty report as a Protocol Officer vide application dated 17.06.2016 addressed to DS (Perl) enclosing medical certificates and fitness certificate. Since the direction of the court in its order dated 13.06.2016 was to continue the interim arrangement which was made by the Division Bench of the court on 08.04.2016, he had to report for duty as LGC and not as Protocol Officer. Hence, the duty report was returned with the direction to report as LGC in the office of the PCCF, Haddo vide Admn's Memo dated 25.06.2016 issued with the approval of the Chief Secretary.
The second charge sheet was issued for different article of charges. It is for not obeying the direction of Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 13.01.2017 in WP No.047 of 2016 to join as LGC in CS & CA Department. So it is not the self- same article of charges of the earlier charge sheet. The application vide his letter dated 17.10.2016 in which he did not deny the charges levelled upon him but he requested to cancel/withdraw the said charge sheet on the ground that his appointment and regularization of Protocol Officer is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. The said representation dated 17.10.2016 was examined and found devoid of merit and he was accordingly informed vide Memo dates 02.11.2016 which he received on 08.11.2016. Accordingly IO & PO were appointed. So there is no violation of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant had filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to quashing of his appointment to the post of Inspector (W&M) in Civil Supplies Department, which has no relevance with this Disciplinary case. The applicant had not filed any review application before the Supreme Court of India regarding the matter of his appointment as Protocol Officer. He had filed a Review Application before Hon'ble High Court regarding review of his consent to grant of an opportunity to Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
15 OA 351/1053/2018 join as LGC which is also pending and there was no stay order passed by the court. In the inquiry report the article of charges were proved. A copy of the same was forwarded to the applicant, who represented against the inquiry report. The same was considered and the original Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of dismissal of Government service upon the applicant vide Admn's Order No.1349 dated 16.05.2018.
The applicant preferred an appeal against the dismissal before the Appellate Authority vide his appeal dated 20.06.2018, which was sent to the Disciplinary Authority along with the relevant records and comments. As per Rule 26 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the punishing Authority was directed to forward the appeal to the Appellate Authority promptly within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the appeal. The Appeal was received on 26.06.2018 which was forwarded to the Appellate Authority within the stipulated period. The Appellate Authority disposed of the Appeal of the applicant vide Order No. 2598 dated 07.08.2018. In the meantime, the applicant filed this OA.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, since the OA has been filed without exhausting all available remedies, particularly without waiting for the disposal of his appeal, the OA is not maintainable under section 20 of the A.T. Act and should be dismissed.
5. Heard the parties. Perused material on record.
6. During argument, Learned Counsel for the respondents insisted on disposing of MA filed by the respondents challenging the maintainability of the OA on the ground that the instant OA was filed without exhausting all available remedies as required under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 16 OA 351/1053/2018 Learned Counsel for the applicant objects to the prayer of the Learned Counsel for the respondents on the ground that the said MA along with MA filed by the applicant had already been disposed of by the Tribunal by its final order dated 25.07.2022. It is observed from the order of the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 28 of 2022 that the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 19/10/2023 has remanded the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration. In our opinion at this stage, we are required to adjudicate on all issues including the issue of maintainability raised through MA No. 715/2018 filed by the respondents as well as the prayer of the applicant amending the OA to include a challenge to the Appellate order dated 07/08/2018.
7. Section 20 of the A.T. Act states that an application will not be ordinarily be made without exhausting all remedies. The use of the word "ordinarily" in the Act leaves it to the discretion of the tribunal to decide whether circumstances warrant filing of the OA even when all available remedies were not exhausted. In the instant case since the application had challenged the legal basis of the disciplinary proceedings from its initiation itself, it is held that the OA is maintainable even if it was filed before his appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, MA No. 715/2018 is dismissed. Since the appellate order issued subsequently to the filing of the OA has a material bearing on the relief claimed by the applicant in his OA we affirm our earlier order allowing the MA filed by the applicant praying for carrying out amendment in the OA.
8. We now proceed to consider the matter on merits.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 17 OA 351/1053/2018
9. The applicant has challenged the charge memorandum issued to him on 21/07/2016 and on 24/08/2017 and the follow up action including the punishment of removal on the following grounds:
1. Charge memorandum dated 21.07.2016 was issued during the pendency of his Review petition in the matter of his posting without waiting for the decision in his Review Petition in the Hon'ble High Court.
2. He originally belonged to the Civil Supplies department Instead of posting him back to the Civil Supplies Department as per Hon'ble High Court's interim order dated 08/04/2016 he was posted in the Forest Department which is against the rules as well as the Hon'ble High Court's order. Therefore, by not carrying out an illegal order, he has not committed any misconduct.
3. Both the charge sheets have been issued to him for not joining the post of LGC under PCCF. Two charge sheets cannot be issued containing the same charges.
4. Charge sheets have been issued by an incompetent authority. His Appointing authority was the Chief Secretary whereas major penalty charge memoranda were issued by Secretary Personnel who cannot act as the DA as per CCS (CCA) Rules.
5. Charge Memoranda were issued by the Secretary (Personnel) whereas the punishment was imposed by the Chief Secretary acting as the Disciplinary Authority.
6. Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Chief Secretary (C.S.) on 07/08/2018 whereas the tribunal had already Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 18 OA 351/1053/2018 stayed the punishment order issued by the C.S. by its order dated 03/08/2018. Order of the Appellate Authority dated 07/08/2018 as per the Learned Counsel for the applicant is therefore legally not sustainable.
10. During hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2022 setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment orders was not quashed or set aside or even stayed by the Hon'ble High Court in its order in WPCT 28 of 2022 dated 19/10/2023. Therefore, the operative part of the Tribunal's order still holds the field.
11. Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 19/10/2023 in WPCT no. 28 of 2022 has observed as follows:
(emphasis added) "16) It is imperative to acknowledge that the Judgment/Order dated 25th July, 2022, issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata in OA No. 3511/1053/2018, which alleges noncompliance by the Administration herein petitioner no.3 with the Hon'ble High Court's order, neglected to adequately address all the arguments raised by the Administrative authority. Instead, the CAT primarily relied on the order issued by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair dated 13th of January, 2017, as the foundation for its decision. Consequently, owing to this Court's non-recognition of the order dated 13th January, 2017, the subsequent judgment/order issued by the CAT, Kolkata, which relies upon the aforesaid Court's order, shall likewise be deprived of due deference and consideration."
*******
19) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay reported in (2022) 3 SCC 133 reiterated that:
"38. When once a Constitution Bench of this Court declared the law that "all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls", it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue. The expression "all decisions of these Tribunals" used by the Constitution Bench will cover and take within its sweep orders passed on applications or otherwise in the matter of transfer of original Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 19 OA 351/1053/2018 applications from one Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench of the Tribunal."
Thus, this Court, within its jurisdiction where the CAT, Kolkata operates has utilized its authority of judicial review to invalidate the judgment/order being OA No. 3511/1053/2018, issued by the CAT, Kolkata."
In our opinion, the above quoted observation along with its direction remanding the matter back for reconsideration, implicitly supersede the order of this tribunal dated 25/07/2022 notwithstanding the fact that the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 19/10/2023 has not specifically used the words "quashed" and/or "set aside". We therefore, find no merit in the submission of the Learned Counsel for applicant that this Tribunal's order date 25.07.2022 has not been set aside by the above quoted order.
12. This Tribunal vide its order dated 25.7.2022 disposed of this OA by quashing the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant initiated vide charge memo dated 21/07/2016 and 24/08/2017 along with the punishment order dated 16.05.218 and the Appellate order dated 07/08/2018 on the ground that the respondents order posting the applicant as Lower Grade Clerk (LGC) in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) was irregular because as per Hon'ble High Court's orders and observations the parent department of the applicant was Civil Supplies Department and on reversion from the post of Protocol Officer, the applicant should have been posted as LGC in the Civil Supplies Department and not in the PCCF's office. For the reasons discussed in the following paragraphs, we are unable to agree with these findings of the Tribunal in its order dated 25/07/2022.
13. Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 8.4.2016 and 13.6.2016 had directed that pending a final decision in WP 47 of 2016 by the Single Bench the applicant Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 20 OA 351/1053/2018 was to be posted as an LGC. Similarly, by order dated 13/01/2017, Hon'ble High Court while disposing of WP 47 of 2016 directed that the applicant will get all the benefits of an LGC if he joins as LGC in Civil Supplies Department within 10 days of the order. It is a fact that the applicant filed several petitions and applications in the Hon'ble High Court after the aforesaid orders were passed. However, there was no stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court on any of its aforementioned orders. In fact, Hon. High Court repeatedly directed the applicant to be posted as an LGC. As late as on 6.7.2017, Hon. High Court dismissed the mandamus appeal and application for stay of its order in WP 47 of 2016 which had held the appointment of the applicant as Protocol Officer as illegal. He filed a review application against the order dated 6.7.2017, which is still pending. A charge sheet was issued to the applicant for not complying with the orders of the Hon. High Court. Mere pendency of a review application in a court of law cannot be a bar on the administration to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Hon'ble High court in its order in WPA no. 47 of 2016 dated 18/03/2016 set aside the posting of the applicant as Protocol Officer. In CAN 54/2016 and MAT 19/2016, by an interim order, Hon'ble High Court "permitted the applicant to function as LGC being his parent posting by the Administration till the appeal is being heard and disposed of ............". This order was continued by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 13/06/2016 in MAT 19/2016 and CAN 62/2016. The order posting the applicant as an LGC in the office of the PCCF was issued on 04/05/2016 that is after the High Court's order on 08/04/2016 and the charge memorandum for not carrying out the posting order was issued on 27.07.2016. The order dated 08/04/2016 specifically permitted the applicant to function as LGC being his parent posting. A plain reading of the Hon'ble High Court's order Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 21 OA 351/1053/2018 shows that it was not the intention of the Hon'ble High Court to identify the parent department of the applicant. It merely identified LGC as the applicant's substantive posting.
Respondents have submitted that the applicant belonged to the Amalgamated Clerical Cadre. He could be posted as LGC in any of the offices where a post in that cadre was available. Therefore, he was posted as an LGC in the office of the PCCF.
It is a fact that the applicant was initially posted as an LGC in the Civil Supplies Department and continued to work in that department till he was posted in the Protocol Wing of the Publicity Department, but it is clear from his appointment letter that he was selected by the A&N Administration along with several others and was assigned to work in the Supplies Department. He might well have been posted in any other department. His appointment letter also mentions that the seniority of the selected candidates will be determined by their rank in the selection text implying that the seniority of the LGCs are for LGCs across different departments of the A&N administration. We, therefore, find merit in the submission of the respondents that the applicant belonged to the Amalgamated Clerical cadre and could be posted in any department under the A&N Administration where vacancy in the cadre existed. It is for the administration to decide the department and place of posting of an employee. We do not agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant ought to have been posted in Civil Supplies Department after the Hon'ble High Court's order on 08/4/2016. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant in this regard appears to be an afterthought as the applicant himself submitted his duty report as Protocol Officer on 17/06/2016, presumably because the Hon. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 22 OA 351/1053/2018 High Court on 13.6.2017 set aside the order of 18.3.2016 of its single bench in WP 47 of 2016 and remanded the matter back to the single bench for reconsideration. The applicant, however chose not to take cognizance of the part of the same order of the Hon. High Court dated 13.6.2016 which had continued the interim arrangement regarding the applicant's posting as an LGC made vide its order dated 8.4.2016. The applicant ought to have carried out the posting order dated 04/05/2016 which was in compliance of Hon'ble High Court's order dated 08/04/2016 reiterated by the Hon'ble High court on 13/06/2016. These two orders of the Hon'ble High Court and the transfer order dated 04/05/2016 and the subsequent letters issued to the applicant in this regard were in force but not carried out by the applicant, when charge memorandum dated 27/07/2016 was issued to the applicant for not carrying out the posting order dated 4.5.2016.
For the reasons cited above, we differ with the Tribunal's order dated 25.07.2022 which was based on the premise that the parent Department of the applicant is Civil Supplies Department as inferred from the Hon'ble High Court orders dated 13.01.2017.
14. WP No. 47/2016 was heard again on 11/12.01.2017 by the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court as per the order in MAT 19/2016 and CAN 62/2016 on 13/06/2016. By an order dated 13/01/2017 Hon'ble High Court quashed the order of posting of the applicant as Protocol Officer. In addition Hon'ble High court made the following observation in its order dated 13/1/2017:
(Emphasis added) "Since the respondent No.6 usurped the post of Protocol Officer under the General Administration without having any authority under the law, he is not entitled to get the financial benefit for discharge of duty of the Protocol Officer under the General Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 23 OA 351/1053/2018 Administration from December 2, 2013 till he is removed from the post of Protocol Officer under General Administration by the respondent No.1 and 2. The question may crop up as to what will be the status of the respondent No.6 from July 24, 2013 when his appointment as Legal Metrology Officer was cancelled by the authority concerned. Since the service of the respondent No.6 in the parent Department as Lower Grade Clerk has not been terminated and since the respondent No.6 is willing to join back to the post of Lower Grade Clerk in the parent Department, the period of service rendered by respondent No.6 under Andaman and Nicobar Administration from July 24, 2013 till the date of this order will be treated as on duty in his substantive post of Lower Grade Clerk under the parent Department. The respondent No.6 is entitled to get all benefits of service including financial benefits and advance career progression and promotion if any, to which he is entitled as Lower Grade Clerk in the department of Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs, subject to the condition that the respondent No.6 will report for duty in the post of Lower Grade Clerk under the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs within a period of ten days from the date of the order."
This part of the order is primarily concerned with the treatment of the period when the applicant functioned as Protocol Officer as this appointment was quashed with retrospective effect. The applicant, by this order was given an opportunity to get his past service regularized as LDC if he joined the Civil Supplies Department within 10 days of the order. Instead of joining as an LDC in the Civil Supplies Department, the applicant sought to keep the issue alive by filing CAN No. 029 of 2017 for modification of the judgement which was dismissed on 27/04/2017. A mandamus appeal and an application for stay of the order dated 13/01/2017 were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 06/07/2017. Even after the aforementioned judicial orders, the applicant did not join as LDC as per transfer order dated 04/5/2016. A charge memorandum was issued to the applicant on 24/08/2017 for not complying with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Since the Hon'ble High Court's order of 13/01/2017 had given an Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 24 OA 351/1053/2018 opportunity to the applicant to be availed within 10 days which he refused to avail, the administration was right in continuing with its earlier order posting him in PCCF's office. The applicant filed a Review Application in the Hon'ble High Court. However, no stay on its earlier orders was granted by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, another charge memorandum was issued to the applicant on 24/8/2017 for not complying with the orders of the Hon. High Court.
15. It is a fact that the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 13/01/2017 directed the applicant to join as LGC in Civil Supplies department, but this direction came with a rider that the applicant should join the Civil Supplies department within 10 days. Since the applicant did not carry out these directions within the stipulated period of 10 days, this part of the order posting him in Civil Supplies department was no longer operative. LDCs belong to an amalgamated cadre under the A & N Administration. Once it was directed by the Hon'ble High Court to post him as an LDC, it was for the administration to decide his place and department of posting, particularly when the applicant failed to report to the Civil Supplies Department to join as an LDC even after 10 days of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13/01/2017. The administration considered it suitable to post him as LDC in PCCF's office. The applicant applied for medical leave to the Protocol department which directed him to join in the PCCF's office and apply for leave from that office as he had already been relieved from the Protocol Department. The applicant not only did not join in the PCCF office he reported for duty in Protocol department declaring himself as a Protocol Officer in defiance of administration's order as well as of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 18/03/2016, 08/04/2016 and 13/06/2016 directing the applicant to be posted as Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 25 OA 351/1053/2018 LGC. Prima facie, the applicant was guilty of misconduct and the respondents were within their rights to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
16. We have gone through the contents of the two charge sheets issued to the applicant. The first charge memorandum was issued on 21/07/2016 for not carrying out the order to join in the office of PCCF. The second charge sheet dated 24.08.2017 was issued for not complying with the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 13/01/2017 and 06/07/2017. The two charges are not identical. We do not find any legal lacuna in the act of the respondents in issuing two separate charge sheets for two different charges.
17. The applicant was initially appointed as an LGC in the year 1990 by the orders of the then Chief Secretary. However, by a gazette notification dated 12/02/2009 a copy of which has been placed on record by the respondents. Disciplinary Authority for LGCs for imposing minor as well as major penalties was changed to Secretary Personnel. The two impugned charge memoranda have been issued by Secretary Personnel who is the competent authority to act as the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the applicant who by court's order was in the grade of LDC at the time the charge memoranda were issued.
18. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the charge memo was issued by the Secretary Personnel but the punishment order was issued by the Chief Secretary. From the schedule of power to act as the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority by the A&N Administration vide gazette notification dated 12.02.2009, Disciplinary Authority for LGCs for imposing both minor as well as major penalties is Secretary Personnel and the Appellate Authority is Chief Secretary. Thus, as has been observed in para 17 above, Secretary Personnel as Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 26 OA 351/1053/2018 the Disciplinary Authority has rightly issued the charge memoranda. However, the punishment order has been issued by the Chief Secretary who should be the Appellate Authority in this case as per the aforementioned Gazette Notification dated 12.02.2009. No reason has been recorded in the punishment order dated 16.05.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary for acting as the Disciplinary Authority when the charge memoranda were issued by Secretary Personnel who as per the notification dated 12.02.2009 is competent to impose all penalties including major penalties under CCS (CCA) Rules. Chief Secretary acting as the Disciplinary Authority, when as per the gazette notification, he should be the Appellate Authority has caused a loss of forum for appeal and revision to the applicant. This is construed as denial of natural justice to the applicant. Thus, the fact that the Chief Secretary has acted as the Disciplinary Authority even when the charge memoranda were issued by Secretary Personnel and the fact that the Chief Secretary as per the respondents' own gazette notification is the Appellate Authority for the amalgamated cadre of LDCs, has resulted in deviation from the laid down procedure for conducting disciplinary proceeding as per the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules and has also resulted in denial of natural justice to the applicant.
19. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B C Chaturvedi Vs UOI reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 held that:
"Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The court/Tribunal has its power of judicial review but it does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence in its arrival at its own dependent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in the manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 27 OA 351/1053/2018 prescribing the mode of inquiry particularly where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence."
In State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh (Civil Appeal Nos. 1763-1764 of 2022) it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:-
"17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
It is thus settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
In the present case, by adhering to the aforesaid settled principles of law, we are of the opinion that the charges in the charge memoranda are specific and not vague, there is no procedural lapse in conducting the departmental enquiry. However, as observed in para 18 above, Chief Secretary as the Disciplinary Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 28 OA 351/1053/2018 Authority in this case when the charge memoranda were issued by the Secretary Personnel who as per the gazette notification of 12.02.2009 was the competent authority to impose both minor and major penalties on the applicant as well as the fact that as per the same gazette notification, Chief Secretary is the Appellate Authority in the case of the applicant it is held that the respondents have not adhered to the procedure laid down in the rules and have also denied natural justice to the applicant by denying him a legitimate forum for appeal.
20. We therefore quash and set aside the punishment order dated 16.05.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority. Consequently, the Appellate Order dated 7th August, 2018 is also set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits within a period of 04 weeks from the date a copy of this order is received by them. It is however, made clear that the applicant will not be entitled to the arrears of pay for the period he has not worked.
21. OA is disposed of. No costs.
MAs are disposed of.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Administrative Member Judicial Member
DR/DB
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.18 15:02:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0