JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this WPCT under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated May 10, 2012 is questioning an order of the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated April 12, 2012 passed in his OA No.220 of 2012.
(2.) THE order of the Tribunal dated April 12, 2012 is quoted below:- "Applicant challenges memorandum dated 9.1.12 whereby departmental proceedings have been initiated against him. Contention raised is that the charges leveled against him are based on RC 18 and 28 validity of which had been challenged before Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is contended that simultaneous proceedings are not permissible under law. In the circumstances notice to the respondents under Rule 11(1)(i) and (iii) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 returnable on 28.6.2012. 2.If request is made before the appropriate authority to stay the departmental proceedings it will be open to such authority to consider the same in terms of rules and law. 3.Plain copy of the order be handed over to ld.counsel for necessary compliance." Mr. Gupta appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the Tribunal did not say anything regarding the petitioner's prayer for interim relief, it is evident that by asking the petitioner to request the authority concerned to consider the question of stay of the disciplinary proceedings, it actually refused the petitioner any interim relief. Mr Gupta has referred to the order of this Court dated June 11, 2012, which is quoted below:- "The petitioner's case before us is that he is required to face a departmental enquiry on an identical charge for which he would have to face a criminal trial as well. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the departmental enquiry be stayed. After arguing the petition for some time, Mr. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner will make an application to the authorities concerned for staying the departmental enquiry. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by such authorities, the petitioner may submit a supplementary affidavit before this Court and the petition will be considered on its own merit. List the matter in the monthly list of August, 2012 with liberty to mention earlier, if necessary. Photostat plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar(Court), be given to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India."
(3.) MR Gupta has submitted that without giving any attention to an application made by the petitioner seeking stay of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority has taken steps for appointing an officer to conduct the inquiry and the presenting officer.;