Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner appeared in person in support of his writ petition challenging, inter alia, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him as well as denial of promotion. The petitioner alleged he had applied for extension of service for a period of 2 years as per provision under Article 4.3.1 of the bye-laws of Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics. Similarly situated members of the said Institute received extension of service but the petitioner was denied such extension. The writ petition was heard on several occasions.
(2.) The petitioner submitted, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and though the proceedings were completed except for the making of the order by the Disciplinary Authority, the same was not made while he was in service till 30th June, 2010. The Disciplinary Authority made its order on 16th June, 2011, after his retirement, by which penalty was imposed deducting 10 per cent from the sum of monthly pension payable to the petitioner for a period of 5 years. According to him the said order passed about a year after his retirement is arbitrary, illegal, disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and in breach of clause 4.8.1 of the bye-laws of the said Institute.
(3.) The petitioner had by application being CAN 9509 of 2013 taken, inter alia, an additional point of challenge. He alleged the said Institute had failed to obtain mandatory approval of its bye-laws and amendments made thereto, from the Government of India pursuant to the tripartite agreement signed in the year 1992, which made all actions and decisions taken by the said Institute against him null and void. The additional point sought to be raised by amendment was on the allegation of subsequent discovery. This Court by order dated 25th January, 2016 allowed the amendment application for the point to be raised and urged. The petitioner in support of such additional point of challenge had relied upon, inter alia, order dated 3rd March, 2010 made by the Central Information Commission on the appeal of one Dr. Supratic Chakraborty against the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), Micro Electrical Division of the said Institute. It appears from the said order the said appellant had sought copies of the bye-laws as approved by the Government of India. The Commission found the explanation of the CPIO was that the bye-laws had been approved by the governing Council of the said Institute. Time of ten working days was granted from the receipt of that order by the CPIO for the said officer to state clearly if the bye-laws framed after 1992 and recruitment norms modified from time to time had received approval of the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy. The petitioner alleged the said appellant was not informed simply because the bye-laws had not been approved.;