Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty vs Union Of India & Ors

The petitioner was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings.

After an unsuccessful departmental appeal, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereafter the tribunal). By its judgment and order dated 4th January, 2005, the tribunal dismissed the original application of the petitioner on merits. A review application that followed was also dismissed by the tribunal on 22nd March, 2005. Aggrieved thereby, the writ jurisdiction of this court has been invoked.

Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were continued and concluded in gross violation of natural justice. He vehemently argues that the petitioner had not been served the chargesheet, which is reflected from the order of the disciplinary authority dated 16th August, 1996 removing him from service. Without appropriate service of the chargesheet, the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated ab initio.

We have perused the order dated 16th August, 1996, passed by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. It appears therefrom that the chargesheet despatched to the petitioner was returned to the disciplinary authority with the postal endorsement "absent for consecutive seven days and hence returned".

We have also perused the appellate order dated 10th April, 2002. It is reiterated therein that the chargesheet dispatched to the petitioner was received back with the aforesaid endorsement, whereafter an inquiry officer was appointed. During the entire course of proceedings before the inquiry officer from 6th September, 1994 till 31st August, 1995, the petitioner did not attend despite the inquiry officer having despatched notices to the petitioner by Regd. A/D. and each time it came back undelivered. It is also revealed from the said order that daily order-sheets, depositions of the witnesses and brief of the presenting officer were also despatched to the petitioner by Regd. A/D, which also came back undelivered.

In paragraph 16 of the reply affidavit filed by the respondents before the tribunal, it has been asserted that all the notices despatched to the petitioner were returned as undelivered. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner before the tribunal.

The position that emerges is that what was within the control of the disciplinary authority and the inquiry officer, the same had been performed by them. They had mailed by Regd. A/D the relevant documents including the chargesheet, the notices of inquiry, the depositions of witnesses, the brief of the presenting officer, etc, but for some reason or the other, the petitioner declined to accept the same. The duties that the disciplinary authority and the inquiry officer owed to the petitioner were thus discharged. The petitioner cannot, therefore, shift the blame on the disciplinary authority or the inquiry officer and contend that he was denied natural justice. The contention is clearly misconceived and, accordingly, overruled.

The next contention of Mr. Chowdhury is that since the petitioner did not have the opportunity to contest the disciplinary proceedings, the appellate authority ought not to have disposed of the appeal without granting personal hearing to the petitioner.

This contention is equally without merit.

The Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 695 [Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors. -vs.- R. K. Uppal] has laid down the law that in the absence of a provision in the governing Discipline and Appeal Rules ordaining grant of personal hearing to the petitioner in course of an appeal, the appellate authority is not under any obligation to hear the appellant before a decision is given on the appeal.

No rule has been shown to us to the effect that the appellate authority is under an obligation to grant pre-decisional hearing. We thus see no reason to come to the aid of the petitioner.

We have noticed from the decision of the tribunal impugned before us that one other point was raised which Mr. Chowdhury has not raised before us, i.e., the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court of charges similar to the one which formed the subject-matter of the disciplinary proceedings.

We have perused the detailed order of the tribunal assigning reasons as to why the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the decision reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 [Captain M. Paul Anthony -vs.- Bharat Gold Mines Limited & Ors.]. The charges in the disciplinary proceedings, in our view, were distinct from the charges that the petitioner faced in course of the criminal trial. There being no infirmity in the process leading to termination of the petitioner from service and to a large extent, the petitioner himself being at fault for not accepting registered articles that were sent to him, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal.

The writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.