DIPAK KUMAR DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are taken up together having assailed the common order by the respective appellants in order to avoid the repetition of facts and the point of law agitated by the respective parties.

(2.) By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 4/10/2023, the Single Bench allowed the writ petition being WPA 9996 of 2019 by quashing and setting aside the disciplinary proceeding as well as the penalty imposed on the ground of malice and bias and directed the reinstatement of the writ petitioner therein to the post which he held prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. The respondent in the writ petition namely, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, filed MAT 2278 of 2023 challenging the aforementioned impugned judgment and order in its entirety; on the other hand, the writ petitioner filed MAT 204 of 2024 assailing the said aforementioned judgment and order on a limited ground that while directing the reinstatement of the writ petitioner to its post held prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding upon having quashed and set aside the penalty imposed upon him, he is entitled to a monetary benefit for such interregnum period.

(3.) Before we proceed to decide the point urged before us it would be apposite and profitable to adumbrate the salient facts leading to the institution of the writ petition by the said Dipak Kr. Dutta (referred to as 'the appellant' for the sake of convenience herein). The said appellant joined as Administrative-cum-Finance Officer at Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Kolkata (referred to as 'the Institute') upon taking a lien from Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow for a period of 2 years which expired on 30/3/2011. Since the Institute was not confirming the appointment of the appellant, the writ petition being WP 9327(W) of 2011 was filed before this Court which was eventually allowed by directing the authorities to confirm the appointment of the appellant. The Order of the Single Bench was assailed before the Division Bench by the Institute but the said intra court appeal was ultimately dismissed. In course of his service, the petitioner allegedly registered several complaints against the director of the said institute relating to the financial irregularities. Ultimately an order of suspension from discharging the duties was issued upon the appellant in contemplation to initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Subsequently, by virtue of the Memorandum dtd. 7/12/2015 the charge-sheet was issued upon the appellant indicating the articles of charges and sought for a response from the appellant. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension by filing writ petition being WP 27725 (W) of 2015 before this Court prior to the service of the charge-sheet. Since the charge-sheet was submitted amidst the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant filed an application being CAN 1 of 2016 in the said writ petition bringing the factum of issuance of the said charge-sheet and further representation was made by the appellant so that the same may be treated as a part of the writ petition. The said application was directed to be tagged with the main writ petition and to be disposed of at the time of final hearing. Further application being CAN 3065 of 2016 was filed by the appellant for stay of the departmental proceeding with categorical averment that the director of the said institute being a party-respondent in the said writ petition is exercising her authority beyond his jurisdiction in issuing the orders dtd. 30/12/2015, 11/1/2016 and 30/1/2016. It would further transpire that another writ petition was filed being WP 26163 (W) of 2015 by the appellant claiming relief relating to an audit report in respect of which a summary inspection was forwarded to the relevant higher authority of the institute. Both the writ petitions were tagged together and finally disposed of on 7/4/2017 by the Single Bench and were ultimately dismissed. The record does not reveal that the said judgment and order dtd. 7/4/2017 is further assailed before the higher forum. However, after accepting the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer the disciplinary proceeding was initiated upon issuance of second show cause notice which culminated into an order of compulsory retirement being the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition being WP 9996 (W) of 2019 by the appellant.