Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(3)CHN505
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the employer, the Union of India, and is directed against order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 836 of 2001 thereby setting aside the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of removal from service of the respondent before us and remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority for appointing an appropriate authority to enquire into the charge against the private respondent in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Service Rules.2. The only ground on which the Tribunal has set aside the order of removal and that of the appellate authority affirming the same is that the enquiry was done by a retired Government servant and according to the Tribunal, it should be done by a sitting Government servant.3. In arriving at such conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1996Cal28,100CWN197
ORDER1. The petitioner in this application have, inter alia, questioned a notification dated 4-2-1994 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 24(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.The petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Officers of Coal Industries and the petitioner No. 2 is the General Secretary of the petitioner No. 1. The other petitioners are Officers of the New Kenda Colliery belonging to Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. An accident occurred in the said New Kenda Colliery as a result whereof 55 lives were lost on 25-1-1994. The impugned notification reads thus:--'Whereas an accident took place on 25th January, 1994 at New Kenda Colliery of Eastern Coal Fields, situate at Burdwan District in the State of West Bengal as result of which there has been loss of lives and properties. And whereas it is the opinion of the Central Government that there must...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT518(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. As identical notices have been issued by the Enquiry Officer in relation to a charge sheet issued by the same disciplinary authority levelling identical charges against the respective petitioners in the above three writ petitions and are subject matter of challenge. The three writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 8131 (W) of 1996 have been noticed in this Judgment and order. The facts in the other two writ petitions being identical.3. The petitioner while working as Constable under Railway Protection Force was proceeded with departmentally and a charge sheet was issued. The charge and the imputation levelled against the petitioner read as under;'Cons/8103 Uma Kant of RPF Post/Andal (P) is charged for active connivance in a theft case of sugar from Rly. Wagons in that- On 6-1-93 white he along with Nk/1508 R.N. Singh, Cons/8980 K. Nath and Cons/3924 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR207]
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Manik Mohan Sarkar, JJ.1. This application is against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 22nd March, 2005, whereby and whereunder the application of the respondent' employee has been allowed, setting aside the order of dismissal from services.2. The facts leading to filing of this case is as follows:3. On of about 21st August, 1986, the respondent-employee, then Assistant Goods Clerk had been in the employment of Eastern Railway, then posted at Farakka N.T.F.C. siding, was charge-sheeted on various imputation of misconduct,4. We find as many as four different imputation of misconduct which include permanent and temporary misappropriation of fund and further not properly accounting for the demurrage charges and not showing in the balance sheet accrual of such demurrage charges and manipulation etc.5. The delinquent employee replied to the said charges. Thereafter, enquiry followed by appointing enquiry officer. There is no dispute that the emp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)(2)SLJ30CAT
1. The applicant, Shri Narayan Ch. Das has filed this OA challenging the charge sheet dated 29.1.90 (Annexure A/1), the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28/31.10.02 (Annexure A/12) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 15.7.03 (Annexure A/15).2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant was a Rest-Giver Assistant Station Master to the regular Station Master Shri L.N. Majhi at Quarry-Siding Railway Station. Shri S.R. Das was another such Rest-Giver Station Master. The applicant has alleged that T-39 Register indicated receipt of two Box Wagons of Steel Plates by Shri Majhi in February and March, 1987. These were for ultimate delivery to M/s Bhagawati Iron & Steel Hardware Depot a Bhubaneswar. Their Agent Sambhu Kedia took delivery of major part of the Steel Plates by gas cutting in presence of Shri Majhi as witnessed by Shri Kalipada Dey a prosecution witness. Supplier did not get cost of the materials and reported the matter to CBI, Rourkela. Their Insp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1956Cal102,1956CriLJ515,60CWN633
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. The three petitioners in this case were convicted under Section 188, Penal Code and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The disobedience charged related to an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. which had been made on 24-8-1954 by Sri B. N. Poddar, a Magistrate of the First Class, Uluberia. In the absence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Pod-dar was in charge that day of his file and in that capacity made the ex parte order requiring the petitioners not to enter the disputed land or disturb the possession of one Annada Prosad Dalui and others, who were the first party, to the proceedings.The dispute related to possession of a portion of plot No. 2844 of khatian No. 299 in mouza Kan-krole. The order was served on the petitioners on 26-8-1954 and on the very next day, it was alleged the petitioners trespassed upon the land in violation of the order. On 30-8-1954 an application was filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1969Cal604
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. Having been appointed as Assistant Inspector of Works in 1934, the Petitioner was, at the material lime, working as Inspector of works at the Kanchrapara workshop of the Eastern Railway. There was a raid on the workshop by dacoits in November 1961, after which it was discovered that 657 steel lees were missing. After a fact-finding inquiry, the Divisional Engineer (Respondent No. 3) issued against the petitioner the charge-sheet at Ann. A to the petition, dated the 25th March, 1964 asking him to show cause why he should not be punished with removal or any lesser penalty for negligence of duty-(i) for failure to ensure the proper locking and sealing of the godown under his charge, which caused loss of Rs.6600 approximately to the Railway; (ii) for failure to verify the stock every 6 months; (iii) for failure to exercise casual check of the stock. 2. After the petitioner submitted his explanation to this charge, however, no inquiry was held but by the ex parte order at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT133(HC),[2004(102)FLR886],(2004)IIILLJ1025Cal
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition being W.P. No. 3516(W) of 2001 by order dated June 26, 2001.2. Having heard Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury assisted by Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. Kamal Kr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent in the appeal, we are of the view that the only question arising for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether after issuing the charge sheet under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 for imposition of major penalty, for which the rule envisages holding of a regular departmental enquiry, the authority can, after examining the reply to the charge sheet inflict a minor punishment without holding a regular departmental enquiry.3. Learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Food Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1964Cal503,68CWN215,(1964)ILLJ462Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. At all times material for the purposes of this Rule, the petitioner was employed as the Curator of the Indian Botanical Gardens at Sibpore, District Howrah. On July 21, 1958, thepetitioner was suspended from service, because there was an enquiry for alleged misconduct started against him by the Anti-Corruption Department of Police. Apparently acting on the report submitted by the Police, C. K. Ray (respondent. No. 3), the then Secretary, Forest Department, by a notice, dated October 17, 1958, charged the petitioner with several misconducts as hereinbelow stated :'Charge I: Illegally and dishonestly accepted- (a) A sum of Rs. 400/- in 1948 from one Monomohan Roy, son of Mohini Mohan Roy of 23A, Peari Mohan Roy Road, Chetla, on the pretest of helping him to get a telephone installed in his house by influencing the Contract Officer Telephones; (b) A sum of Rs. 1,000/- from one Anadi Bhusan Singh, son of Surendra Nath Singh of Prince Anwar Shah Road, Tollygunge, on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1966Cal252,(1967)ILLJ317Cal
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an Order of Banerjee J. making a Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution absolute and quashing the order of termination of service of the respondent. 2. The respondent is a civilian employee of the Ministry of Defence and was first employ ed about twenty-two years back in the Ordinance Section as a permanent labourer in Metal & Steel Factory, Ichapur It is alleged that on or about the 24th February 1960 while working in the course of his employment he received injury on his chest, two hands and shoulders as a result of an accident by fall of a scrap iron and he was immediately shifted to the Military Hospital at Alipur but he was discharged from the said hospital on the 6th March 1960 There after he reported for duty but was not allow ed to resume his duties and was kept under observation of the local hospital of the Metal & Steel Factory for three weeks. Upon the expiry of three weeks he again reported for duty but was not allowed to resume his d...
Tag this Judgment!