7. WP.CT 201 of 2026 Judgment corrected.odt ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0441082026 Item No.7 Ct. No. 1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT 201 of 2026 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIA GOVERNMENT MINT, (A UNIT OF SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.), A WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAWAN, 16TH FLOOR, JANPATH, NEW DELHI – 110001 AND ALSO AT P-104, ALIPORE, KOLKATA – 700 053; 2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIA GOVERNMENT MINT, SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 16TH FLOOR, JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAWAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI – 110001. …..PETITIONERS Versus 1. RATHINDRA GANGULY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SON OF LATE CHITTARANJAN GANGULY PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT 2/9, RABINDRANAGAR, P.O. PARNASHREE, KOLKATA – 700060 AND HAVING HIS PRESENT RESIDENCE AT 3/72, RABINDRANAGAR, PO & PS – PARNASHREE, KOLKATA – 700060. …..APPLICANT/RESPONDENT 1 of 6 7. WP.CT 201 of 2026 Judgment corrected.odt 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, CURRENCY AND COINAGE SECTION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001; 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (COST) BEING THE INQUIRING AUTHORITY, INDIA GOVERNMENT MINT, ALIPORE, KOLKATA - 700053 …..PROFORMA RESPONDENTS ---- Appearance: Mr. Arya Bhattacharyya Mr. A. N. Bhattacharyya Mr. Zainab Kamal …..Advocates for Petitioners Mr. Chandan Chakraborty …..Advocate for Respondent No.1 ---- CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ. & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Suffice it to say that the following dates and events are germane for deciding whether the Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 13.07.2026, has rightly condoned the delay or not :- 2 of 6 7. WP.CT 201 of 2026 Judgment corrected.odt (a) The Original Applicant/Employee joined service with India Government Mint, on 06.06.1986. (b) On 29.07.1994, he was arrested on charges of theft of 73 Coins of Rs.5/- denomination. (c) The Employee was suspended on 29.07.1994. (d) On 03.09.1994, the Employer initiated a disciplinary proceedings by issuing the Charge Memorandum. (e) Between 03.09.1994 to 04.12.2004, the Employee did not appear in the Departmental Enquiry. (f) On 14.09.1994, the Employee had sent a letter to the Employer, requesting for adjourning the Departmental Enquiry until his criminal case was decided. (g) The Departmental Enquiry, since the Employee did not participate, concluded on 26.06.1998. (h) On 10.04.2004, the Employer served the Enquiry Report on the Employee. (i) On 04.12.2004, the Disciplinary Authority issued the order of punishment and dismissed the Employee from service. (j) On 25.04.2005, O.A. 425 of 2005 was filed. (k) On 27.05.2005, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the Employee to file a departmental appeal within one month from the date of communication of the said order, and the Appellate 3 of 6 7. WP.CT 201 of 2026 Judgment corrected.odt Authority would decide the same within four months. (l) The Employee contends before us that the above order was not served upon the Employee. We find from the record that the Employee was represented by a counsel whose oral submissions have been recorded from Paragraph No.6 in the impugned order. (m) Instead of filing the appeal within one month, the Employee preferred the appeal on 21.08.2019, contending that the Judicial Magistrate has acquitted him of the charges leveled upon him, by the judgment dated 17.06.2019 in CGR Case No.2435 of 1994. (n) The Judicial Magistrate recorded that there are several loopholes in the Prosecution evidence and veracity of allegation is not established beyond reasonable doubt. This acquittal order is passed in four sentences. The Employee contends that he came to know the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal only on 30.01.2021. (o) On 24.02.2022, he preferred O.A. No.325 of 2022. (p) The Tribunal passed an order on 29.08.2022. In the said order, requested the Tribunal noted that ‘the Employee fairly submitted that the Tribunal may issue a direction to the competent authority to consider his appeal’. The Tribunal noted that this is an innocuous prayer and disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the Employer to decide the appeal within eight weeks. This was the 4 of 6 7. WP.CT 201 of 2026 Judgment corrected.odt only prayer made by the Applicant/Employee in his O.A. (q) Thereafter, by an extensive order dated 20.05.2023, the Employer disposed of the departmental appeal of the Employee on the ground that the appeal was preferred after 16 years of the earlier order of the Tribunal (directing him to prefer the appeal within one month) dated 27.05.2005. (r) Thereafter, the O.A. No.146 of 2025 was filed by the Employee on 30.01.2025. 3. The impugned order dated 13.07.2026, does not take into account any of the above dates and sequence of events. Though the delay has to be considered liberally, it does not mean that the Tribunal should allow the condonation of delay application, as if it was performing a formality. Delay cannot be condoned on misplaced sympathy. The impugned order does not indicate any reason as regards the alleged delay of 16 years in filing the departmental appeal, by claiming ignorance of the order of the Tribunal dated 27.05.2005 directing him to file the appeal within one month. 4. In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 13.07.2026 is quashed and set aside. M.A. No.216 of 2026 is restored to the file of the Tribunal. 5 of 6 7. WP.CT 201 of 2026 Judgment corrected.odt 5. The parties should appear before the Tribunal on the scheduled date i.e. 14th October, 2026. M.A. No. 216 of 2026, shall be reconsidered by the Tribunal in the light of the dates and sequence of events reproduced herein above and shall pass a reasoned order. 6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice 6 of 6