PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner herein has challenged the decision of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench whereby the said learned Tribunal while dismissing the Misc. Applications filed at the instance of the Respondents herein held that it had jurisdiction and competence to recall the orders passed on an earlier occasion by the other members of the said learned Tribunal. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 70 of 2009.
(2.) GOING through the records we find that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Gangman on 29th September, 1993. Subsequently, the said petitioner was transferred to Barrackpore as Gateman. On receipt of a complaint with regard to his appointment, said petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 11th August, 1997 passed by the competent authority in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued to the said petitioner on 26th February, 1990. In spite of issuing the charge sheet, no enquiry proceeding was initiated against the petitioner herein. The said petitioner, therefore, moved an application before the learned Tribunal being O.A. No. 31 of 1999 challenging the validity of the suspension order which was disposed of by the order dated 29th June, 1999 whereby the authorities concerned were directed by the learned Tribunal to consider the appeal of the petitioner with regard to the rejecion of the order of suspension. The authorities concerned, however, by the order dated 24th November, 2000 refused to reject the suspension order upon considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the said petitioner. Since the enquiry proceeding was not initiated for a considerable period even after issuing the charge sheet, petitioner herein filed another application before the learned Tribunal being O.A. No. 442 of 2004. The learned Tribunal by the order dated 7th July, 2004 disposed of the said application by directing the authorities to complete the enquiry within six months from the date of communication of the said order. The Disciplinary Authority however, failed to complete the departmental proceedings within the aforesaid stipulated period of six months and even after lapse of almost 7 years from the date of issuing the charge sheet to the petitioner herein. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner again filed an application before the learned Tribunal being O.A. No. 268 of 2005 which was also disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 25th July, 2005 with the following observations and directions :- "Since grave charges have been alleged against the applicant, therefore, if the opportunity is not given to the respondents for completion of enquiry, it would cause hardship against them. Therefore, we hereby direct the respondent authorities to complete the enquiry on day to day basis within a period of three months from today. Ms. Basu is called upon to ensure that they can proceed with the enquiry on the basis of such communication made by her. It is explicitly made clear that in the event they fail to complete the enquiry within the stipulated time, the enquiry shall automatically stand quashed. Be it noted that the applicant in his own interest shall also render all necessary assistance for completion of enquiry within the aforesaid date."
(3.) IN spite of the aforesaid specific order passed by the learned Tribunal, enquiry proceeding in respect of the petitioner herein was not completed. The respondent authorities filed two Misc. Applications being M.A. No. 588 of 2005 and M.A. No. 589 of 2005 seeking extension of time to complete the enquiry proceeding upon condonation of delay and the petitioner herein also filed a contempt application being Civil Contempt Petition No. 139 of 2006. Both the Misc. Applications as well as the Contempt Petition were listed before the learned Tribunal and by the order dated 9th January, 2008, aforesaid applications (namely, MAs) were disposed of as hereunder :- "Our order dated 25.7.2005 contains two directions. The first was to complete the enquiry on day to day basis within a period of three months failing which the enquiry should stand quashed. The second directions was to pay 75% subsistence allowance from the date of our order till the completion of disciplinary proceedings. The first part itself is self- contained having penal clause (sic) that if enquiry is not complete the same shall stand quashed. So no contempt lies. Ld. Counsel for the alleged contemnor submits that they are not sure whether the enhanced subsistence allowance has been paid or not in accordance with our order dated 25.7.2005. Hence they seek some time to clarify. Be that as it may, we direct the authorities to make payments, if not already made, within 15 days from the communication of this order failing which necessary appropriate order for personal appearance of the alleged contemnor will be passed. Put up CPC No. 139/2006 on 6.2.2008. Both the MAs stand accordingly disposed of." ;