Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradeep Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 November, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
12.11.2014
kc & pj M.A.T 429 of 2014
with
C.A.N.2802 of 2014 (Stay)
Pradeep Kumar
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Joydeep Sen
Mr. Subhojit Seal
...for the appellant
Mr. Uttam Kumar Mazumder
.. for the respondents
With the leave of the Court, the defect is cured.
The appellant was a constable in BSF. He was dismissed in service taking recourse Section 22(e) of the BSF Act on the allegation of being drunk.
Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in his usual fairness admits that the appellant was drunk. However, he was off duty. Moreover, the circular that would prevent some one to consume alchohol when he was not in duty, was full of flaws and was merely an office circular that would have no adverse effect and that would take away some body's means of livelihood.
From the records it appears that the appellant was dismissed from service on April 20, 2002 by the Office of the Commandant, 50 BN BSF, Gokulnagar, Tripura, outside the State of West Bengal. The appellant was a resident of Bihar.
He preferred a departmental appeal on July 16, 2002 to the Director General at New Delhi. The authority dismissed his appeal and communicated the same to him at Bihar on October 30, 2002. He did not contemporaneously react. His advocate for the first time on February 19, 2004 applied for records that the authority promptly sent vide a letter dated February 22, 2004. The present writ petition was filed on July 02, 2005. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay.
We have considered the rival contentions that have been raised before us by Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the authority.
Mr. Mazumder would raise the issue of jurisdiction. As according to him, nothing happened within our State.
Mr. Sen would, however, submit that the proceeding was at Jalpaiguri. However, we do not find any support from any document. Apart from the question of jurisdiction, the aspect of delay is not sufficiently explained. When a person is deprived of his means of livelihood, natural course would be he would try to ventilate his grievance at the earliest. The 2 dates referred to above would suggest otherwise. From the past records it appears that the appellant was an habitual offender of consuming alcohol and he was cautioned on many occasions when lighter punishment was imposed. Yet he could not rectify himself.
The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Since the appeal is dismissed, nothing remains to be decided in the application being C.A.N.2802 of 2014. It also stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
(Banerjee,J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty,J.)