- (1.) The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 22nd April, 2010 passed by the learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 224 of 2010 since the learned Tribunal by the aforesaid impugned order refused to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches but also declined to pass even any interim order restraining the authorities from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings.
(2.) From the records we find that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Memo No. 76/DPS/CON/FA/1P-10/09 dated 22nd February, 2010 on the allegation of acquiring assets disproportionate to the known sources of income during the period between 1990 and 1999. In the Article of Charge it has been specifically alleged that the petitioner herein could not give convincing explanation for acquiring assets to the tune of Rs. 1,12,275/- during the aforesaid period. Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings on the verge of retirement of the petitioner on the basis of very old and stale charge, which the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate. The learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner further submitted that the alleged charge levelled against the petitioner and mentioned in the charge sheet is absolutely stale since the same is related to the period from 1990 to 1999. According to the learned Senior Counsel, initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid stale charge cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
(3.) In the Article of Charge framed against the petitioner it has been specifically mentioned that during the period between 1990 and 1999 said petitioner acquired total assets to the extent of Rs. 2,61,100/-, out of which no convincing explanation could be given for an amount of Rs. 1,12,275/- and, therefore, the same was considered to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the said petitioner.;