Nishita Mhatre, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, i.e., the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ESI Corporation') has challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in O.A. No. 245 of 2003. By its impugned order the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent employee and set aside the order of punishment dated 30th April, 1991. The Tribunal has directed that the respondent be restored to his original pay from the stage his pay was reduced as a result of the aforesaid order of punishment. The Tribunal further directed that the respondent be considered for promotions to various grades from the date his juniors were promoted. All arrears resulting from such retrospective promotions including revision of pension etc. was directed to be paid within four months from the date of the order. The brief facts in the present case are as follows: The respondent was working as a Lower Division Clerk with the petitioner after his appointment on 2nd September, 1964. He was suspended from service with effect from 14th June, 1976. Pending a disciplinary enquiry, a charge -sheet was issued on 1st December, 1976, in which he was charged for neglecting his duties and committing certain irregularities in the payment of dues to beneficiaries under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. These irregularities were noticed during an audit inspection. The charge -sheet was issued pertaining to 8 of the 26 irregularities and objections raised during the audit inspection. Another charge -sheet was issued on 11th May, 1978 regarding the 18 other objections raised in the audit report.
(2.) THE disciplinary enquiry proceeded in respect of the charge -sheet dated 1st December, 1976, and the respondent was found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. He was punished by reduction of his pay by three stages with effect from 1st September, 1981. The respondent preferred a statutory appeal. The appellate authority by its order dated 23rd June, 1982 enhanced the penalty and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement against the respondent. Being aggrieved by that order the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court. The Writ Petition being C.O. 4021(W) of 1985 was decided on September, 1985. A learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that the appellate authority had taken into consideration the matters against the employee for which he was not charged. It was found that the order of compulsory retirement was therefore illegal as no opportunity to deal with those allegations had been afforded to the respondent because those charges were not contained in the charge -sheet. The Court further directed that since the order of compulsory retirement had been set aside, all salaries as admissible in law should be paid to the respondent employee within a stipulated time. However, the Court observed that the order would not prevent the ESI Corporation from considering the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ESI Corporation/challenged this order of the learned Single Judge by preferring FMA 553 of 1985 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench observed that there was no evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the delinquent employee had misappropriated any amount from some of the bills prepared by him. However, the Court found that there was evidence to establish that he had failed or neglected to take note of the instructions of the superior authority and had prepared a faulty bill. However, this could not lead to the finding that he had misappropriated the amount under the bill observed the Division Bench, especially when neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority had reached such a conclusion. The Division Bench held that the charge of dereliction of duty and the finding to that effect by the disciplinary authority could not be said to be perverse or contrary to the records. While dismissing the appeal the Division Bench upheld the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of compulsory retirement was illegal. The second charge -sheet which was issued against the petitioner on 11th May, 1978 remained in abeyance and no action was taken in respect of that charge -sheet till 30th April, 1991. The disciplinary authority issued an order after the enquiry was held, withholding one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The respondent preferred an appeal. However, that appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. He therefore filed another appeal and a revision petition, both of which were dismissed on 17th September, 2001 and 25th February, 2002 respectively.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by those orders the respondent challenged them before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 245 of 2003. He also challenged the charge -sheet dated 11th May, 1978 and the consequential order of punishment dated 30th April, 1991. The respondent prayed that because of the departmental proceedings pending against him, his juniors had superseded him and therefore, he should be granted promotions and consequential benefits from the date when his juniors were promoted.;