IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI WP.CT/31/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … PETITIONERS VS. YASHVI PAREKH … RESPONDENT For the Petitioners : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi For the Respondent : Mr. Terence D’Cruz Hearing concluded on : July 31, 2025 Judgment delivered on : August 02, 2025 SUVRA GHOSH, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment / order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench holding its circuit at Port Blair on March 20, 2025, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed as follows:- “(i) Applicant’s period of suspension from 21.10.2019 to 23.07.2022 is to be treated as having been spent on duty entitling him to all consequential benefits including his full salary. (ii) Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.07.2022 dismissing the applicant from service with immediate 2 effect having been set aside, the applicant’s services will deem to have been restored w.e.f. 23.07.2022 that is the date of his dismissal from service. He will be paid full salary for the period from 23.07.2022 to 31.07.2022. (iii) The applicant will be entitled to full pensionary and retiral benefits upon his retirement from service w.e.f. 01.08.2022. (iv) Respondents will pay all salary, pension and retiral dues to the applicant as directed above, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in their office.” 2. The respondent was an employee under the Andaman Public Works Department. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by a chargesheet dated March 31, 2021. He was dismissed from service upon completion of inquiry on July 23, 2022. The respondent approached the Tribunal by filing an Original Application which was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. 3. Though the period of limitation for preferring such appeal is 45 days, the appeal was preferred after 115 days of receipt of the copy of the order of dismissal. The appeal not being decided by the Appellate Authority within six months, the respondent reverted to the Tribunal which directed disposal of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The said time frame was not adhered to by the appellate forum for which the respondent approached the Tribunal again. 4. By an order passed on June 06, 2024, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary authority’s order was perverse inasmuch as the 3 punishment was grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, the Tribunal again directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three months in the light of the observation made in its order. The said order was challenged before this Court by the respondent and by an order passed on November 11, 2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on June 06, 2024 and directed the Tribunal to take up the matter on merits and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably with a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The coordinate Bench also held that once an application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Tribunal, by reason of Sub-Section 4 of Section 19 of the Act of 1985 all departmental remedies/appeals automatically abate. The Tribunal ought to have either taken up the matter on merits or simpliciter follow the advice and opinion of the UPSC insofar as quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent is concerned. 5. The respondent herein, however, did not agree with the recommendation of the UPSC. 6. Pursuant to the said order, the Tribunal took up the issue for reconsideration and by the order impugned dated March 20, 2025 reiterated its view taken in the earlier order and disposed of the application with directions in favour of the respondent. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the direction of this Court, the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue on merits afresh and not reiterated its finding in the earlier order. No reason has been assigned by the Tribunal in granting the benefits to the respondent. 8. Vehemently opposing the contention of the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the provision laid down under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and has submitted that when the appeal preferred by the employee is not considered within six months, all the proceedings pending immediately prior to the appeal shall abate, meaning thereby, that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent shall abate. Since the Appellate Authority did not dispose of the appeal preferred by the respondent within six months, all the proceedings prior to the said appeal has abated and the Tribunal has rightly directed restoration of the service of the respondent along with clearance of all the consequential benefits including the salary, pensionary and other retiral benefits. 9. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the authorities in Union of India and others vs. R. Reddappa and another reported in (1993) 4 SCC 269, S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1990 AIR 10 and Union of India through Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC 5 vs. Dr. M.R. Diwan and another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7711 in support of his contention. 10. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and material on record. 11. It shall be useful to reproduce Section 19(4) of the Act of 1985. “19 (4) Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject-matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.” 12. In other words, upon admission of an application by a Tribunal under Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, proceedings under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter of the application pending immediately before such admission shall abate. Therefore every proceeding as to redressal of grievances and not proceedings pertaining to disciplinary issues or dismissal shall abate under the said provisions of law. 13. Section 20 of the Act deals with a situation when a Tribunal can admit an application. The provision says that an application shall not be admitted unless other remedies are exhausted, other remedies being an appeal preferred or representation made by the aggrieved person and if such appeal/representation is not disposed of within six months thereof. 6 14. In the case in hand, the respondent was allowed to prefer the appeal even beyond the statutory period of time. The appeal not being disposed of within six months, an original application was filed by him before the learned Tribunal which directed disposal of the appeal within another three months. After expiry of the said time frame, the Tribunal, by its order dated June 06, 2024 further directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within another three months. The said order was set aside by this Court, which directed the Tribunal to deal with the matter on merits. Despite such direction, the Tribunal, by the order impugned, reiterated its observation made in the earlier order which was quashed by this Court, without dealing with the matter on merits afresh. 15. Though submission was made on the behalf of parties on merits of the case, the Tribunal, for reasons best known to it, chose not to deal with the same. It held that the application was maintainable before the Tribunal, recorded its observation made in the earlier application and passed the order impugned. 16. In the authority in S.S. Rathore (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the provision regarding limitation under Section 21 of the 1985 Act. Since delay in preferring the appeal by the respondent was condoned in the present case, ratio of the judgment is not applicable herein. 7 17. The authority in Union of India and others (supra) deals with illegal order passed by disciplinary authority which, according to the Hon’ble Court, does not assume the character of legality only because it has been affirmed in appeal or revision unless the higher authority is found to have applied its mind to the basic infirmity in the order. In the present case, such issue has not cropped up. 18. In the authority in Union of India through Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with a situation where disciplinary proceedings was not completed within the time fixed by the Tribunal. The fact of the case can be distinguished from the fact situation in the present case. 19. In our considered view, the Tribunal ought to have decided the matter on merits in terms of the order of this Court dated November 11, 2024 and disposed of the application upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The Tribunal not having acted in terms of the direction of this Court, the order impugned is required to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, WP.CT/31/2025 is allowed. 21. The order impugned dated March 20, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench holding its circuit Bench at Port Blair in O.A 351/00840/2023/AN is quashed/set aside. 8 22. The Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible, upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law. 23. The respondent shall be at liberty to seek interim relief during pendency of the hearing before the Tribunal. 24. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 25. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities. I agree ( MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.) ( SUVRA GHOSH, J. )