Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Asish Kumar Das Mahapatra vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 March, 2026
Form No. J.(2)
Item No. 3
Court No. 1
PG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 24.03.2026
DELIVERED ON: 24.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
WP.CT. 156 of 2015
Sri Asish Kumar Das Mahapatra
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Ayan Banerjee
Ms. Debjani Sengupta
Ms. Poulomi Ghosh .........for the petitioner
Mr. S.N. Dutta ..........for the respondents
JUDGEMENT (ORAL):
PER, SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:-
1. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution,
the challenge is mounted to the order of Central Administrative
Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) dated 03.07.2015
pased in O.A. No. 350/00765/2015, whereby the challenge of
petitioner to the charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings failed
before the Tribunal.
2
ADMITTED FACTS
2. The petitioner was working as Depot Material Superintendent
(DMS-II) with the department. The petitioner was awarded with
certificate of merit for outstanding performance and devotion of
duty in the year 2004. In 2007, the petitioner was again
awarded certificate of merit for outstanding performance and
devotion of duty. The petitioner was promoted in the year 2003
as Depot Material Superintendent (DMS-I) on restructuring
basis.
3. The impugned charge sheet dated 28.01.2012 came as a bolt
from blue to the petitioner just before two days of his retirement.
After recording the evidence, the inquiry report was conveyed to
the applicant on 3/12.09.2013. In turn, petitioner submitted his
reply on 20.10.2013. Since disciplinary proceedings were not
concluded and there was inordinate delay in issuing the charge
sheet, the petitioner filed instant O.A. before the Tribunal for
setting aside the charge sheet dated 28.01.2012 and the
consequential disciplinary proceedings.
4. The Tribunal opined that it cannot interfere with the charge
sheet and disciplinary proceedings at this stage because no
finality has been achieved in the departmental proceedings.
2
3
While declining interference, Tribunal thought it proper to issue
direction to the department to ensure that entire process of
disciplinary proceedings is concluded within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Parties
agreed that although the period of two months was extended
twice, even that extended period came to an end long back.
5. During the course of hearing, on specific query from the Bench,
learned counsel for railway administration fairly informed that
because of non-cooperation of the petitioner in the disciplinary
proceedings, the proceedings could not achieve finality till date.
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER
6. Learned counsel for petitioner by taking this Court to the charge
sheet submits that the allegations of shortage of certain store
materials were verified and came to the notice of department,
way back on 21.01.1999. Despite having knowledge of alleged
shortcoming, no action was taken by issuing the charge sheet
and same is issued after more than 13 years from the date of
alleged incident of finding shortage.
7. It is submitted that despite knowing the shortage of material,
petitioner was awarded with the promotion on the post of Depot
Material Superintendent. Thus, misconduct (if any), is deemed to
3
4
have been condoned. In other words, it is urged that if a
misconduct or shortcoming is known to the department and yet
with eyes open the department promoted the petitioner, in view
of judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2005) 6 SCC 641
(Vinayaka Dev Idagunji & Ors. vs. Shivaram & Ors.), the
misconduct is condoned and charge sheet cannot become reason
to punish the petitioner.
8. On the aspect of inordinate delay, the petitioner placed reliance
on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2005) 6 SCC
636 (P.V. Mahadevan vs. Md. T.N. Housing Board).
9. Lastly, it is urged that in view of Delhi High Court judgment in
the case of O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr. 1981 SCC
OnLine Del. 373, it is clear that charge sheet must be issued
within reasonable time and with quite promptitude. The
department could not assert a single justifiable reason for
belatedly issuing the charge sheet and similarly concluding the
disciplinary proceedings within reasonable time. In the result,
the petitioner’s certain retiral dues are still withheld. For these
cumulative reasons, it is prayed that the impugned charge sheet
and the disciplinary proceedings be set aside by directing the
respondents to provide him all consequential benefits.
4
5
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS
10. Learned counsel for respondents submits that no doubt, despite
getting two opportunities of extension of time in concluding the
inquiry, the department could not conclude the same for the
reason of non-cooperation of the petitioner. By placing reliance
on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (1994) 3 SCC
357 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Upendra Singh), it is
submitted that scope of judicial review by this Court on the
disciplinary proceedings is limited. If, upon admission of
charges, no misconduct is established, interference can be
made. The correctness of allegations cannot be examined in the
present proceedings.
11. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
FINDINGS
12. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
13. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to examine
Article-I of the charge dated 28.01.2012 (Annexure-‘P5’). A
minute reading of this allegation makes it clear that the alleged
shortage of items in the storage were detected, way back on
21.01.1999. Admittedly, thereafter the petitioner was given two
awards for his meritorious working and also promoted as Depot
5
6
Material Superintendent-I in 2003. In 2012, the impugned
charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner was served with the said charge sheet
two days before his retirement. In the charge sheet, there is no
allegation against the petitioner that he has
embezzled/misappropriated/pocketed or pilferaged or taken any
pecuniary benefit arising out of alleged shortage. A simple
shortage in store, which was detected in 1999 became subject-
matter of charge sheet issued on 28.01.2012. The material
placed before us nowhere explains the inordinate delay in
issuing the charge sheet.
14. No doubt, in Upendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court opined
that the charge sheet can be assailed on limited ground.
However, limited to the grounds raised in the said case, the
Court opined that the correctness of allegations cannot be gone
into on writ proceedings. In the instant case, the petitioner is not
challenging the charge sheet on the ground of its correctness.
Instead, petitioner is assailing the charge sheet on the ground of
unexplained and inordinate delay.
6
7
15. Law on this point is well-settled. The Apex Court way back in the
case of State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh reported in 1990 Supp.
SCC 738 opined as under:
“The irregularities which were the subject-matter
of the enquiry are said to have taken place between the
years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that
they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and
came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in
April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the
officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were
going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think
that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate
the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal.
There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate
delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the
view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental
enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case
there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders
and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. The same principle was followed by Supreme Court in the case
of State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakrishnan reported in (1998) 4
SCC 154.
17. A conjoint reading of both the authoritative pronouncements
makes it clear that an unexplained and inordinate delay in
issuing the charge sheet can very well be a ground for
interference. The prosecution cannot be permitted to become a
persecution. In the instant case, sadly, the charge sheet was
issued in a mechanical way before two days of petitioner’s
7
8
retirement and after 12-13 years of the detection of shortage.
This inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing the charge
sheet deserves interference.
18. The Tribunal has miserably failed to see that as per the
authoritative pronouncements of Supreme Court in Bani Singh
(supra) and Radhakrishnan (supra), the charge sheet and
disciplinary proceedings could have been challenged on the
ground of inordinate and unexplained delay.
19. Thus, we are unable to countenance the order of Tribunal,
where it opined that it cannot interfere on the charge sheet
because it had not attained finality by imposing the punishment.
20. Apart from this, the Tribunal while not entertaining the O.A.,
directed to conclude the inquiry within two months. The said
period was extended twice but within those extended periods
also, the disciplinary proceedings could not be finalised. In the
result, the petitioner, who retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.01.2012, had not received the entire
retiral dues and certain dues are still withheld.
21. The sword of disciplinary proceedings is hanging on the head of
the petitioner for more than a decade. Nothing prevented the
administration to conclude the inquiry ex parte even assuming
8
9
that petitioner was not participating in the inquiry. There is no
justifiable reason in not concluding the inquiry despite the order
of the Tribunal fixing the time limits.
22. As a consequence, we are constrained to hold that belated
initiation and non-completion of inquiry for decades cannot be
countenanced. The citizen/civil post holder has a right of speedy
trial as well as speedy initiation and conclusion of disciplinary
proceedings. The said right of civil post holder is grossly and
arbitrarily breached by the respondents for the reasons solely
attributable to them. It certainly hits Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
23. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned charge sheet
dated 28.01.2012 and disciplinary proceedings founded upon it
are set aside.
24. The petitioner shall get all consequential benefits as if the said
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to charge sheet dated
28.01.2012 was never initiated against him. The petitioner, who
was entitled to get his retiral dues on the date of retirement was
deprived to get the same. The respondents shall pay the said
benefits to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of
9
10
production of copy of this order with interest @ 6% p.a. on
delayed payment.
25. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
26. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all
legal formalities.
(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.)
I agree.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
10
