PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner while assailing the judgment and order dated
(2.) ND August, 2012 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in Case No. O. A. 249 of 2012 has raised an important question with regard to the validity and/or legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. The learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, however, by the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2012, upheld the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to pass the final order in the instant case but held that in case of enhancement of punishment other than the notified one, fresh notice is to be served. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned Tribunal, since the learned Tribunal granted liberty to the respondent authorities to inflict enhanced punishment upon the petitioner after serving fresh notice. 2. On examination of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that the Public Service Commission, West Bengal by its order dated 3rd August, 2011 suggested enhancement of punishment other than the punishment notified to the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the aforesaid advice of Public Service Commission, West Bengal the respondent authorities proposed imposition of enhanced punishment upon the petitioner herein without serving any fresh notice on the petitioner in respect of enhanced punishment. In course of hearing of the writ petition, a serious question was raised regarding validity and/or legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, since it has been specifically alleged that the Disciplinary Authority had no knowledge in respect of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the punishment was imposed in the name of the Disciplinary Authority by another authority in clear violation of the rules. The learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted before this Court that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner is undisputedly, the Governor of the State. The learned advocate further submitted that the matter relating to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was never brought to the knowledge of the Governor and therefore the Governor, being the Disciplinary Authority, never issued any direction for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned advocate of the petitioner also submitted that the Governor did not authorise any other authority to initiate and conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein. The learned advocate of the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner stands vitiated on the sole ground that the same was neither initiated by the Disciplinary Authority nor by any authority aurhorised by the said Disciplinary Authority.;