Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Union Of India & Ors vs Ayanendu Sanyal on 27 September, 2016
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
27.09.16
Item No.17
Court No.17
Krishnendu
W.P.C.T. No. 190 of 2016
In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 03.08.2016;
And
In re: Union of India & Ors.
- Versus -
Ayanendu Sanyal
Mr.Dibashis Basu
For the Petitioners
Mr. Indranath Mitra
For the Respondent
The petition challenges the order dated 22nd June, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 711 of 2013.
The disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the Respondent for having been absent from 7th March, 2007 to 31st July, 2008. On an enquiry being conducted, he was found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. A statutory appeal was filed and the Appellate Authority set aside the punishment and ordered de novo proceedings from the stage of service of the charge sheet on the Respondent. In the meantime, the Respondent had tendered his resignation on 14th August, 2008 which indisputably has been received by the Petitioners.
The orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were challenged before the Tribunal by the Respondent on various grounds. The Tribunal by relying on the observation of the Appellate Authority that "better it would have been if the resignation was accepted" found that the direction to hold a de novo enquiry against an employee, who had no desire to go back into service even if he was exonerated, was of no consequence.
The Tribunal has observed that the Appellate Authority's order indicated that the enquiry proceedings were initiated, conducted and concluded in violation of law and therefore it was not possible to accept the Appellate Authority's direction to conduct a de novo proceedings. It is in these circumstances the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority directing it to consider the Respondent as having resigned with effect from 14th August, 2008 with consequential benefits as he 2 would be entitled in law. We do not find any infirmity in this order of the Tribunal. There is no need for us to interfere with the same.
Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)