Appellant court must correct error if impugned order is unlawful: Cal HC

Kolkata: Quashing disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality after his retirement and directing the state to grant the appellant his retirement benefits, including pension, Calcutta High Court observed it is the duty of appellate court to correct the error if an impugned order runs contrary to well established principles of law and practice.

The appellant moved the Division Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gourang Kanth on not getting any apparent relief from a Single Bench. He was working as an Upper Division Assistant (UDA) at Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality local office. He superannuated on December 31, 2015. On January 2, 2016, a charge sheet dated December 31, 2015 was served upon him proposing to initiate enquiry under Rule 7 of the West Bengal Municipal Employees (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2010, and Rules 78(f) and 81(2) of the West Bengal Municipal (Employees Service) Rules, 2010.

A disciplinary proceeding commenced where the appellant denied and disputed the imputations against him. The report held him guilty of the charges. It was decided his pension be withheld. The appellant approached Single Bench challenging the charge sheet and the enquiry proceeding, including the show cause notice for withholding pension, on the ground that the disciplinary authority had no jurisdiction to continue the proceeding after his superannuation. Meanwhile, a punishment order was passed permanently withholding 50 per cent of his pension. The Single Bench disposed of the writ petition, asking the appellant to assail the chargesheet, findings of the enquiry officer and order of punishment in accordance with law.

The Division Bench observed that the rules concerned did not provide for initiating any disciplinary proceedings after superannuation of an employee. As to whether the Single Judge should have adjudicated the issue taking into consideration the passing of the punishment order and decide if it was without authority of law, the court observed: "There is ample power in constitutional courts to take into consideration subsequent events and mould relief to the exigencies of the situation for the ends of justice."

Further, the court observed: "...If the impugned order runs contrary to well established principles of law and practice, it is the duty of the appellate court to correct the error."