Tapabrata Chakraborty J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is an order dated 25th July, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in original application being OA 1076 of 2012.
(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working in the post of Transportation Inspector at Krishnanagar he was transferred and posted as Station Superintendent at Ranaghat by an order dated 26th September, 2011 passed by the respondent no.5. As the petitioner did not join the transferred post a show cause notice dated 9th December, 2011 was issued in response to which the petitioner submitted a representation on 18th December, 2011 stating, inter alia, that from 26th September, 2011 he was sick and was under the treatment of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Ranaghat and as such he was not fit to join his duty. The said representation was, however, not considered and the petitioner's salary was stopped from the month of November, 2011. Such fact was again communicated to the respondent no.5 by a representation dated 11th January, 2012 but in vain. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an original application being OA 205 of 2012 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 13th March, 2012 directing the respondent no.4 to consider the petitioner's representation and to pass a reasoned order. Pursuant to such direction the respondent no.4 passed an order on 11th April, 2012 observing that the petitioner's absence was unauthorised and that he would not be paid any salary for the said period and that his actions warrant initiation of a departmental proceeding. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner was issued a major penalty charge sheet on 6th/13th June, 2012. Aggrieved by the order dated 11th April, 2012 and the major penalty charge sheet dated 6th/13th June, 2012, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by filing an original application being OA 1076 of 2012. In the same, initially an order was passed on 18th December, 2012 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join at his transferred place in terms of the order dated 26th September, 2011. In spite of the said order the petitioner was not allowed to join the transferred post and as such he preferred a contempt application being CPC 86 of 2012. The petitioner was thereafter allowed to join as Station Superintendent at Ranaghat on 10th January, 2013 and recording such fact the contempt application was dismissed by an order dated 14th January, 2013. Thereafter a letter dated 31st January, 2013 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 alleging that after joining at Ranaghat on 10th January, 2013 the petitioner was advised to report to the respondent no.4 at Sealdah but as he failed to do so, "G37" could not be issued in his favour for special medical examination. Disputing such statement the petitioner submitted a letter dated 2nd February, 2013 and such fact was brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal in the pending original application and by an order dated 5th March, 2014 the learned Tribunal directed the respondents to conduct the required medical examination and to allow the petitioner to perform his duty at Ranaghat and to pay his regular salary as the petitioner has voluntarily presented himself for joining. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner was sent for special medical examination on 7th May, 2014 and the petitioner was officially allowed to join on 6th June, 2014 but his arrear salaries were not released. Subsequent thereto, OA 1076 of 2012 was dismissed by the order dated 25th July, 2014. The petitioner preferred an application for review of the said order but the same was also dismissed by an order dated 31st March, 2015. Though the petitioner was allowed to join at Ranaghat he was asked to undergo a refresher course of 6 + 3 days which was not required in terms of the rules since the post of Station Superintendent is a Supervisory post. Challenging such action of the respondents, the petitioner filed an original application being OA 350/01262/2014 but the same was dismissed by an order dated 15th May, 2015. In the midst of pendency of the above original applications the respondents, however, proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding.
(3.) He further submits that challenging the impugned order dated 25th July, 2014 the petitioner preferred the present writ petition on 3rd March, 2015. Notice of the said application was served upon the respondents who obtained repeated adjournments and did not file the affidavit in opposition within the time as directed by the Hon'ble Court. On one hand the respondents took adjournment and on the other hand a final order was passed in the disciplinary proceeding on 6th/13th June, 2012 and a penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. Such fact was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court by an application being CAN 1970 of 2016 and by an order dated 17th June, 2016 the Hon'ble Court was pleased to stay the order of removal until further orders observing, inter alia, that "the respondents have been playing hide and seek with the petitioner and unfortunately with the Court as well".;