Joydeb Paladhi v. State Of West Bengal & Ors.

JUDGMENT

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated December 4, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 335 of 2005.

The writ petitioner was a constable of the Calcutta Police. He remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties on several occasions. The authorities inflicted upon him the punishments. At least, 31 punishments were inflicted on him; in most of the cases, the punishments were inflicted on him, as he was habitual absentee. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not rectify himself.

Therefore, the authorities decided to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him. Ultimately, the enquiry officer found him guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority recommended dismissal of the writ petitioner.

The writ petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority.

In Chapter 19 of the Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968, the procedures of the disciplinary proceedings are provided. Under Regulation 11 of the said Chapter 19, the period of appeal and the procedure were prescribed.

In terms of the aforesaid regulation, if an aggrieved person wants to prefer an appeal, he is to prefer the same by thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the disciplinary authority by him.

Mr. Masud Karim, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not served with the order and, therefore, he could not prefer the appeal in time.

The writ petitioner, althrough, remained absent in the disciplinary proceedings and did not cooperate with the authorities. His appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Admittedly, there was no explanation for late filing of the appeal. The tribunal, also, having regard to his past conduct, thought that the order of punishment inflicted on him was not disproportionate with the charges levelled against him.

We do not think that this indisciplined person in the disciplined police force is essential.

We find no merit in the writ application and the same, thus, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.