- (1.) This writ petition dated 12th April, 2006 is at the instance of an ex-employee of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (hereafter the Corporation). Following disciplinary proceedings, the Corporation had dismissed him from service. The order of dismissal having been carried in appeal, was confirmed by the appellate authority. The petitioner by filing this writ petition seeks interference of this Court with the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the order of dismissal as well as the order of the appellate authority, on diverse grounds.
(2.) I had the occasion to hear the writ petition finally on June 26, 2009. Accepting the contention of the learned counsel representing the Corporation that the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner were not governed by any statute and that a contract of personal service could not be specifically enforced in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, I had held that the petitioner could not seek reinstatement in service and that if his service had been terminated wrongfully, he ought to have taken recourse to remedy available to him other than writ proceedings. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the Corporation on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (West Bengal Electronic Industries Development Corporation Limited and ors. v. Dr. K. K. Chakraborty and ors., 2003 4 CalHN 446) was found to be apt. There was a further reason for which I declined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner admittedly was a workman. If indeed the domestic enquiry conducted against him was invalid either for breach of principles of natural justice or any other reason and an approach were made for adjudication of the industrial dispute between him and the Corporation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the tribunal on arriving at a finding that the domestic enquiry was invalid could have given opportunity to the Corporation to adduce further evidence for justifying the dismissal. Such opportunity would not be available before a court of writ. I had recorded my opinion that when law provides an opportunity to the employer to adduce further evidence before the tribunal, the writ court ought not to deprive the employer of such an opportunity, particularly when the writ petition was entertained on April 19, 2006 by a learned Judge of this Court keeping the point of maintainability open. Since an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner was available, it was held that he was not entitled to exercise of discretion in his favour.
(3.) The order dated June 26, 2009 was the subject matter of a writ appeal (MAT No. 765 of 2009) at the instance of the petitioner. Relevant portion of the order dated June 14, 2011 of the Appeal Court reads as follows: "This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 26th June, 2009 whereby a learned Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition upon holding that the appellant writ petitioner herein should have taken recourse to remedy available to him other than writ proceedings. We are unable to affirm the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner is undisputedly, a regular employee of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited. ***** Undisputedly, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited is a Government of India undertaking and the decision of the aforesaid Government undertaking can be challenged before the court of law by any aggrieved employee by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of dismissal in the case of Brojanath Ganguly, an employee of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited was also challenged before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the matter was finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision in the case of Brojanath Ganguly is reported in 1986 AIR(SC) 1571 In the aforesaid circumstances, we cannot take a contrary view overlooking the decision in the case of Brojanath Ganguly and refuse to adjudicate the grievances of the appellant arising out of the order of dismissal passed in a disciplinary proceeding which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The learned Single Judge having determination to entertain service matters is requested to adjudicate the writ petition on merits upon deciding the validity and/or legality of the disciplinary proceedings as well as the orders passed therein at an early date. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the appeal and the connected Stay application stand disposed of upon treating the appeal as on day's list. (Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.)";