1 / 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Item No.D/L.2 Saikat Mukherjee WP.CT NO.157 OF 20 26 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ] ...Petitioners Versus SAFIUL ALAM ] ...Respondent Appearance: Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad and Ms. Debjani Ghosal, Advocates for the Petitioner Mr. Udaynarayan Betal with Mr. Barun Chatterjee and Mr. Mriganka Patra, Advocates for the Respondent CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ. & ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. DATE : 18th September, 2026. JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V Ghuge, CJ) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner before us is the Union of India and the Department of Post, represented by Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. The Petitioners seek to challenge the Order passed by the Learned Central Administrative 2 / 8 Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated 05.01.2026 and the correction Order dated 09.01.2026 delivered in O.A. No.529 of 2025, which was preferred by the Respondent, vide which the suspension of the Original Applicant/Employee has been set aside. 3. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties at length on 17.09.2026 and today. 4. The dates and sequence of events are as under:- (a) The Employee was awarded the minor penalty of censure under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control Appeal) Rules, 1965 for negligence in duties and misconduct. (b) On 21.06.2020, it was noticed that the Employee indulged in a fraudulent transfer of government money amounting to Rs.8,81,276/-, from the Postmaster’s DBT account to unauthorised accounts by misuse of Finacle credentials. (c) A written complaint dated 16.07.2020 regarding the financial fraud, was received from the Postmaster. The Employee is set to have admitted his misconduct in writing. 3 / 8 (d) In view of the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.1 crore, the Employee deposited Rs.10 lakhs on 16.07.2020, in the government account as Unclassified Receipt (UCR). (e) On 17.07.2020, the Employee was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the 1965 Rules. (f) An FIR No.196/2020 was lodged on 20.07.2020, at Suri Police Station. One more FIR No.199/2020 was lodged in the same Police Station, on 21.07.2020. (g) The Employee surrendered before the Court (he was absconding earlier) on 03.03.2021 and was taken into judicial custody. (h) The First Memorandum of Charge under Rule 14 was issued on 01.06.2021. (i) The First Memorandum was withdrawn on 30.06.2021 due to defects in the statement of imputations. (j) Certain procedural compliances were made by the Petitioner-Department in between 17.02.2022 till 10.10.2023 (k) The High Court at Calcutta granted bail to the Employee on 07.10.2024. (l) A fresh Memorandum of Charge was served upon the Employee on 06.01.2025. (m) An Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 18.02.2025. 4 / 8 (n) The Board of Inquiry initiated the Departmental Inquiry and conducted sittings on 13.03.2025, 03.04.2025, 30.05.2025, 30.06.2025 and 25.07.2025. (o) The Learned Tribunal stayed the disciplinary inquiry at the behest of the Employee, on 07.08.2025. (p) On 05.01.2026, the Learned Tribunal revoked the suspension. (q) The criminal prosecution in Suri Special Court Case No.03/2021, is at the stage of recording evidence. Only one witness has been examined by the prosecution in the last more than five years. 5. We have perused the Order of the Learned Tribunal dated 05.01.2026 by which the suspension order has been revoked. Having considered the strenuous submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respective sides, we have gone through the record available. 6. It is settled position of law that it is for the Employer to place an Employee under suspension pending Departmental Inquiry on payment of suspension allowance. It is also settled position of law that if the inquiry is prolonged by the conduct of the Employee, the suspension allowance can be reduced. In the present case, on the one hand, the Employee approached the Learned Tribunal to have the Departmental 5 / 8 Inquiry stayed. On the other hand, he approached the Learned Tribunal to have the suspension revoked. There is no dispute that the Employee is alleged to have indulged in misappropriation of Rs.1 crore and has voluntarily deposited Rs.10 lakhs in the account of the Post department. 7. The Petitioner does not desire that the inquiry should be completed within a timeline. On his request, that Learned Tribunal has delivered an Order revoking the suspension which amounts to a final Order. As such, on the one hand, the Employee desires that the suspension Order should be vacated and has received an Order, and on the other hand, he has got the inquiry stayed by moving the Learned Tribunal. Both these aspects cannot go together. The inquiry is getting prolonged since the Employee succeeded in getting an Order of keeping the inquiry in abeyance. In the backdrop of grave and serious charges levelled against him and since the Employer submits that the Employee was occupying the position of System Assistant and Office Assistant due to which he had an access to the passwords, such an Employee cannot be reinstated in service, more so when the same Employee has got the inquiry stayed. The Learned Counsel for the Employee submits that there is no such post which he is occupying. 6 / 8 8. We are of the view that the Employee cannot have the best of the both. Either he can pray for an early conclusion of the inquiry or he can pray for vacating the suspension provided there are such convincing grounds. 9. We find that the Tribunal has erred in considering several factors. A Departmental Inquiry under Service jurisprudence is aimed at dealing with a charge levelled upon an Employee. The onus and burden on proving the charge rests on the Employer. In Service jurisprudence, the charge-sheeted Employee is not required to prove his innocence. He is deemed to be innocent until the charge is proved by the Employer. Moreover, if a criminal proceeding is taking its own course before a Court having criminal jurisdiction, such proceedings stand on a completely distinct and different concept of law. In Service jurisprudence, the Employer has to prove the charge on preponderance of the Principles of Probabilities. In a criminal case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, has to be proved beyond any doubt. Both proceedings are conceptually distinct and different. [Chairman LIC & Ors. vs. A. Masilamani, 2013 I CLR II 2013 (1) CLR 561 (SC); Ajit Kumar Nag vs. GM Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 4217; Ragunath Vishnu Patil vs. R.N. Gavande & Ors., 1993 II CLR 50 (Bom HC); Pest Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. Employees vs. Pest Control (I) Pvt. Ltd., 7 / 8 2000 I CLR 289; Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank, 2003 AIR SCW 1238 (part-10); Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. vs. Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi, 2002 (94) FLR 453 SC; Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr., 2004 III CLR 755 SC and Shambhu S Lall vs. Coal India Ltd. & Ors., 2011 I CLR 426] 10. In service jurisprudence, it is the duty of the Employer to conclude the inquiry by following the due process of law and take the Departmental Inquiry to a logical conclusion. In the case before us, the Departmental Inquiry has been stayed. The suspension has also been revoked by the Tribunal. As such the Employer is restrained from proceeding with the Inquiry and take it to a logical end which is the legal obligation on any Employer. 11. We have perused the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in support of the direction to revoke the suspension. Things do not rest here. The Tribunal proceeded to pass an Order that the period of suspension between 15.07.2020 and 03.01.2021, as well as the period from 12.01.2025, shall be treated as being spent on duty and the Employee would be entitled for salary for this entire period, as if he has performed his duty. We find that the Tribunal has erred in considering settled principles of Service jurisprudence. On technical grounds, the suspension 8 / 8 could not have been interfered with only because at one stage the review was not done timely. The Tribunal should have considered that a grave and serious charge is levelled upon the Employee and it is for the Employer to consider whether such an Employee should be permitted to enter the premises of the establishment during the pendency of the criminal case as well as the Departmental Inquiry, to perform such nature of duties which led to the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.1 crore. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order is perverse and deserves interference. 12. This Petition is allowed. The impugned Order of the Tribunal dated 05.01.2026 and the corrected Order dated 09.01.2026, stand quashed and set aside. Needless to state, that the Employee would be entitled to the suspension allowance as per Rules. 13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge) Chief Justice