Disciplinary Proceedings- Court Should Exercise Restraint While Passing Order Saddling Employer With Financial Burden: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court emphasized that the Court should exercise restrain before passing an Order saddling the employer with any financial burden.

The Court was hearing the Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Single Judge which disposed of two Writ Petitions.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed, “The direction in regard to the payment of interest only provides a ‘just’ compensation. Payment of interest has to be taken within the ambit of the expression ‘just’. The Court should exercise restrain before passing an order saddling the employer with any financial burden. It is not a case simpliciter that Rabindra retired on a particular date and thereafter the employer withheld his pensionary benefits without any reason whatsoever. The facts would reveal that there were three pending DPs on the date of issuance of the order of compulsory retirement.”

The Bench remarked that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom and even a slight distinction in fact or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision making process.

Advocate Achin Kumar Majumdar appeared on behalf of the Appellant, while Advocate Sanjit Kumar Ghosh appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

One Appeal was filed by the Union of India and its functionaries and the other Appeal was filed by a man namely Rabindra Nath Das. Both Appeals challenged the Judgment of the Single Judge. Rabindra was working in the post of Sub Inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF), who was issued a chargesheet alleging that he has misbehaved with an officer and had held a press conference with media reporters and another chargesheet alleging gross negligence and slack supervision for failure to prevent crime. A further chargesheet was issued alleging gross negligence and slack supervision as regards incorporation of GD entries.

Challenging the said chargesheets, Rabindra filed a Writ Petition in which an Interim Order was passed. Subsequently, another chargesheet was issued against him alleging unauthorized absence and in the disciplinary proceedings (DPs), an Order of removal was passed. This was challenged by him before the Appellate Authority, which modified the removal order to an order of compulsory retirement. He accepted the same but thereafter, a memo was issued against which he preferred another Writ Petition. As the same was disposed of by the Single Judge, he was before the Division Bench.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “The judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided and not observations made in the facts of any particular case. There is no dispute as regards the proposition of law upon laid down in the judgments, upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Ghosh but the same are distinguishable on facts. The judgment delivered in the case of Md. Farid (Supra), upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Majumdar is also distinguishable on facts.”

The Court was of the view that had the said order of compulsory retirement which was passed modifying an order of removal, been challenged by Rabindra, the pending DPs may not have been rendered infructuous.

“Having thus wriggled out of the rigors of the pending DPs, Rabindra cannot claim interest alleging that the authorities had deliberately withheld the benefits consequential to compulsory retirement. In such facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it was rightly found to be inexpedient to direct the employer to pay interest to Rabindra as claimed”, it added.

The Court, therefore, directed the RPF authorities to withdraw the deposited amount along with the accrued interest and to disburse the same in favour of Rabindra together with all other consequential benefits, if any within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the Court’s Order.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both the Appeals.

Cause Title- Rabindra Nath Das v. Union of India & Ors. (Case Number: MAT 739 of 2017)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Achin Kumar Majumdar and Ananya Adhikary.

Respondents: Advocates Sanjit Kumar Ghosh and Raja Ghosh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment