DIPANKAR DATTA,J. - (1.) The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the widow of Dipak Bhattacharjee (hereafter Dipak), who passed away on May 21, 2010. An appellate order dated February 24, 2016 passed by the Managing Director of the North Bengal State Transport Corporation (hereafter the NBSTC) is subjected by the petitioner to challenge herein, whereby a departmental appeal preferred by Dipak against a post-retirement final order of punishment was disposed of with an insignificant modification of the order impugned.
(2.) During his lifetime, Dipak was an employee of the NBSTC. He had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on August 31, 2006. A few days prior to his retirement, July 6, 2006 to be precise, Dipak was suspended in connection with disciplinary proceedings that had been drawn up against him. The charges related to financial irregularities committed by Dipak while functioning as Assistant Divisional Cashier, Mainaguri depot. An enquiry followed, conducted by the Personnel Officer, NBSTC : Siliguri Division (hereafter the enquiry officer). Two of the three charges levelled against Dipak were held to be established by the enquiry officer in his report dated September 21, 2007. Accepting such report, the Divisional Manager, NBSTC : Siliguri Division who was the disciplinary authority of Dipak passed a final order of punishment dated October 4, 2007, the operative part whereof reads as follows: "He deserves severe punishment for his misdeed and I pass the following orders:- 1. Since Shri Dipak Bhattacharjee had retired from the service on 31.08.2006, so an amount of Rs.2,03,821.00 + Rs.30,573.00 (interest @ Rs. 15% of Rs.2,03,821.00) = Rs.2,34,394.00 (Rupees two lacs thirty four thousand three hundred ninety four) is to be deducted from his Retirement Benefits payable in favour of Shri Dipak Bhattacharjee. 2. The period of suspension will be treated as on punishment during the period of suspension he will not get anything other than subsistence allowance."
(3.) During the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, Dipak had presented a writ petition before this Court [W.P. 19890(W) of 2007], complaining of non-grant of adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The said writ petition was listed for consideration before this Bench on February 2, 2009. None appeared for the respondents. It was represented on behalf of Dipak that during the pendency of the writ petition, the disciplinary authority had passed the final order on the basis of findings of guilt recorded in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Learned advocate for Dipak prayed for liberty to prefer an appeal against the final order and for a direction to consider such appeal waiving limitation, if any. There being none to oppose the prayer, the same was granted. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to Dipak to prefer an appeal against the final order of penalty within fifteen days from date. It was also observed that in the event Dipak filed an appeal within fifteen days from date, the same would require consideration on merits by the appellate authority waiving limitation, if any, upon hearing Dipak. The appeal was required to be disposed of within four weeks from date of receipt thereof and in the event the appeal was rejected, the order should have the support of reasons.;