1 WBCHCA0033362026 Item No.2 Ct. No. 1 RP IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPCT 31 OF 2026 Shri Ashis Chandra Das, Son of Late Santosh Kumar Das, aged about 66 years, ] residing at C/o. Ganesh Ch. Ghosh, Mahaprabha Appt. ] (6th Floor) (above Pantaloons), Raja Bazar, ] Block No.A/6A, P.O.-Midnapur, ] District-Paschim Midnapore, West Bengal, PIN-721101 ]…..Petitioner versus 1) Union of India, service through the General Manager, ] S. E. Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata-700043. ] 2) The Chief Electrical Engineer, South Eastern Railway, ] Garden Reach, Kolkata-700043 ] 3) The Additional Divisional Railway Manager ] South Eastern Railway, P.O. Adra, District-Purulia ] PIN-723121 ] 4) The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR-D), ] South Eastern Railway, P.O.-Adra, District-Purulia, ] PIN-723121 ]… Respondents 2 Appearance: Mr. Ujjal Ray Mr. Atreya Chakraborty ...Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Promod Kumar Drolia Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey ...Advocate for UOI CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE, CHIEF JUSTICE & OM NARAYAN RAI J. Date :24.09.2026 JUDGMENT ( Per Ravindra V Ghuge, CJ ) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. This matter is heard at length on the challenge posed by the Petitioner to the Judgment dated 27.05.2025 rejecting O.A. no. 01783/2015 filed by the Petitioner and the order on the Review Application No.00016/2025, dated 31.07.2025. 3. Though the Learned Advocate for the Respondent Department/Railways has vehemently canvassed that this Petition deserves to be dismissed and there is no error in both the impugned orders, we find that this Petition pertains to an inappropriate procedure of conducting the 3 proceedings and a lack of fair opportunity of hearing to be given by the Tribunal to all the parties. 4. The dates and sequence of events would be germane while deciding the controversy before us. For easy reference, we are summarising the dates and sequence of events hereunder: a) A Charge Sheet was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent Department/Railways, on 29.06.2009. b) The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment of reduction of pay by 1 stage for 4 years, on 28.01.2011. c) The Petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal on 06.02.2011, before the Additional Divisional Railway Manager against the order of punishment dated 28.01.2011. d) The Appellate Authority, by order dated 25.05.2011, modified the Disciplinary Authority’s Order dated 28.01.2011, reducing the punishment to ‘Censure’. e) The Revisionary Authority issued the first show cause notice on 08.08.2012, as to why the quantum of punishment should not be increased. f) The Petitioner challenged the first show cause notice by filing OA/382/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central 4 Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 25.07.2014, quashed the first show cause notice because it was issued beyond the limitation period available to the Revisional authority. g) The Respondent Department/Railways (Revisional authority) still issued the show cause notice dated 27.12.2014 (second notice), proposing the same punishment. h) The Petitioner again challenged the second show cause notice dated 27.12.2014, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing OA/138/2015, which the Tribunal allowed by its order dated 07.04.2015 and quashed the notice. i) The General Manager of the Respondent Department/Railways still issued the third show cause notice in the same cause. j) The Petitioner filed his third Original Application no. OA/1783/2015, for challenging the 3rd Show Cause Notice. k) During the pendency of OA/1783/2015, the Respondent Department/Railways passed a compulsory retirement order with 2/3 pension and gratuity, on 15.05.2017. l) The Original Applicant preferred MA/244/2021, seeking leave to amend the pending Original Application for assailing the compulsory retirement order. 5 m) The Central Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 25.04.2025, allowed the amendment sought for by the Original Applicant, but closed the matter for judgment. n) The Central Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 27.05.2025, dismissed the OA/1783/2015. o) The Petitioner preferred a Review Application, RA no. 16/2025 seeking review of the order dated 27.05.2025. However, by order dated 31.07.2025, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application. 5. As such, it is apparent that the Employer kept on repeating its attempts to exercise authority claiming to be the Revisional Authority. When this failed, the Respondent/Employer, without giving an opportunity of hearing, issued an order of punishment of compulsory retirement on 15.05.2017. 6. The above facts are apparent from the record. The Petitioner had moved an Application, MA 244 of 2021, seeking leave to amend the Original Application for the purpose of assailing the fresh order dated 15.05.2017, and for addition of pleadings, grounds and prayers. On 25.04.2025, the Tribunal allowed MA 244 of 2021, which means that the Petitioner was permitted to amend the Original Application and bring on record his challenge to the fresh 6 order of punishment, which was passed after lodging of the Original Application. However, before the Petitioner could even amend the Petition and bring on record the amended memo of the Original Application and assail the impugned order, the Tribunal closed the matter for Judgment on the same day i.e. 25.04.2025. 7. The Learned Advocate for the Railways has strenuously defended the above procedure adopted by the Tribunal by contending that no injustice has been caused to the Petitioner. He has drawn our attention even to the review order dated 31.07.2025, to support his contention that the Tribunal considered the contentions of the Petitioner and dealt with such contentions and recorded that no error has occurred on the face of the record. He, therefore, justifies the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Review Application was rightly rejected. 8. It is often said that justice is not only to be done, but, it must also appear to have been done. It is trite that a Tribunal or a Judicial Forum has to follow the procedure laid down in law and the Principles of Natural Justice have to be adhered to. The unusual procedure adopted by the Tribunal can be recapitulated as under:- 7 a) The Petitioner was permitted to amend the Original Application and assail the order of punishment, passed after lodging of the Original Application. He was also allowed to add grounds/pleadings and prayer for seeking quashing of the same. b) However, on the date the order permitting the amendment was passed i.e. 25.04.2025, the Tribunal closed the matter for Judgment. c) As a consequence, there was no formal amendment to the Original Application. d) The Respondent/Employer was not given an opportunity of filing an additional Affidavit-in-Opposition/Affidavit-in-Reply to counter the challenge to the new order of punishment and to justify the said order. e) Only because the Respondent/Employer has succeeded before the Tribunal, that the Employer is supporting the impugned order in this Petition. Had the Respondent/Railways suffered an adverse order, we are sure that the Railways would have taken this ground as the first and foremost ground, that after allowing the Petitioner to amend the Petition and assail the fresh order of punishment, the Railways were not given an opportunity to file an Affidavit- in-Opposition and canvass its case to justify the order of punishment. 8 9. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the Learned Tribunal, unfortunately, has acted in haste. When the Original Application was pending for 10 years from its lodgment in 2015 till April 2025, there was no impediment to follow the procedure required to be followed while giving a fair opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 10. The learned Counsel for the Railways has canvassed that the Tribunal has dealt with the order of compulsory retirement dated 15.05.2017 in its Judgment. We do not find that the Tribunal has even adverted to the last order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 15.05.2017, in the main order. Leave to amend was granted, but, only on paper. This alone was a sufficient ground for the Tribunal to have realized its mistake and should have allowed the review application so as to give a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to justify his challenge to the order dated 15.05.2017 and an equal opportunity to the Employer to justify issuance of the said order dated 15.05.2017. 11. In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. Both the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 31.07.2025, are quashed and set aside. O.A. no. 01783/2015 is restored to the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. 9 12. Considering the peculiar facts as recorded above, we deem it appropriate to direct that O.A.350/01783/2015 shall be allotted to a Bench comprising of a different composition. We direct the Registry of this Court to communicate this order to the Hon’ble Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, for issuance of an appropriate direction to place OA no. 1783 of 2015, before a different Bench at Kolkata. 13. The Learned Advocate for the Railways submits that the Tribunal, which would now deal with the present Original Application, may permit the Railways to submit their Affidavit-in-Reply to the amended Original Application. The said request stands accepted. All contentions of both the parties are kept open to be considered by the Tribunal on their merits. 14. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms. (OM NARAYAN RAI , J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice