UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, the Union of India and others, have preferred the instant appeal to challenge the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated January 18, 2017, in W. P. No 11387 (W) of 2016. The appellants have challenged the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge as above on the grounds inter alia that, the same is misconceived and bad in law, is a result of non-consideration of and nonapplication of mind to, all the materials on record and that the same is liable to be set aside.

(2.) Bereft of any unnecessary details, the factual background of this case may be summarised in a manner as follows: The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the following two orders of the appellant authorities, in the writ petition, i.e,

(3.) The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and has ultimately come to the finding vide his report dated February 25, 2009, that the charges framed against the writ petitioner/respondent were not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the findings in the enquiry report as above and a 'disagreement note' dated May 20, 2009, was communicated to the writ petitioner/respondent. This has prompted the writ petitioner/respondent to submit a written representation to the disciplinary authority on June 5, 2009. At the same time, the respondent/writ petitioner challenged the said 'disagreement note', vide writ petition being W.P.No. 9786(w) of 2009. The Court directed him in the same, vide order dated June 22, 2009, to submit a fresh representation within a stipulated period, which the Disciplinary Authority was to consider and pass necessary order, within the prescribed time limit. However, before this exercise could be completed, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order of dismissal of the writ petitioner, vide memo dated July 13, 2009. Order of dismissal of the writ petitioner, as above, was challenged by him in an appeal, presented before the appropriate authority on August 4, 2009. A representation was also submitted on October 30, 2009. Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated December 2, 2009 and upheld writ petitioner's punishment for dismissal. By filing another writ petition being No. W.P.665(w) of 2010, the present respondent challenged the said order dated December 2, 2009, before this Court. The Hon'ble Single Bench, in the said case, set aside the order of dismissal and directed for reinstatement of service of the present respondent. The present appellants challenged the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge in an appeal being FMA No. 1190 of 2013. The Hon'ble Division Bench gave its nod regarding the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge and sent back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider representation of the present respondent/writ petitioner and to pass a reasoned final order. No action to comply with the said order of the Hon'ble Division Bench had prompted the present respondent/writ petitioner to file a contempt case before this Court, that is, CPAN No. 764(w) of 2015. It was only after a rule was issued against the Inspector General of Police, West Bengal Circle, Central Reserve Police Force, the memo dated October 3, 2015 was issued.