1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS WP.CT/59/2025 K. AMOSE … PETITIONER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : September 28, 2026 Judgment delivered on : October 05, 2026 MADHURESH PRASAD, J. 1. The petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (‘CAT’ for short). The Original Application filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed, leading to filing of the present writ petition challenging the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the CAT in OA/840/2021. 2 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the applications before the Tribunal are founded on the petitioner having joined the service of the Andaman Public Works Department (‘APWD’ for short) as Draughtsman Grade-III in the year 1988. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Draughtsman Grade-II in due time. 3. One Shri Abdul Majid and one Shri K.L. Solomon filed two separate complaint cases on the selfsame allegations before the learned Magistrate giving rise to two criminal cases bearing FIR No.536 of 2010 dated 21.06.2010 and FIR No.657 of 2010 dated 12.09.2010. The FIRs were lodged under Sections 420/463/464/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, as a result, was taken in custody and thereafter enlarged on bail. 4. It is relevant to mention here that one of the two FIRs namely FIR No.657/2010 was quashed by judgment dated 17.01.2020 passed by the High Court in a criminal revisional application filed by the writ petitioner. 5. An off-shoot of the allegations made in the criminal case was issuance of a charge memo dated 04.04.2019. The charge memo contained two articles of charges. 6. Firstly, it was alleged that the essential requisite age for the appointment in question was 18-25 years. The petitioner however 3 was 28 years at the time he obtained his appointment in the year 1988. It was alleged that he obtained the appointment by furnishing a false date of birth (04.12.1967) instead of actual date of birth (12.04.1960). This demonstrated lack of integrity and was unbecoming of a government servant. 7. As per the second charge, after his appointment, the petitioner submitted a fake certificate of Diploma in Civil Engineering (Diploma for short) from Chengalvaraya Naicker Polytechic, Madras (Polytechnic for short). He got this qualification incorporated in his service records for the purpose of bettering his prospects, in service. Such act was also considered by the employer to be exhibiting lack of integrity and unbecoming of a government servant. 8. The charge memo dated 04.04.2019 was accompanied with a list of seven witnesses whom the department proposed to rely upon in the proceeding. The charge memo also contained a list of 14 documents by which the department proposed to support the charges. 9. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension at his place of posting at Rangat, Middle Andaman vide Order No.1268 dated 06.05.2019. Petitioner was directed not to leave the headquarter. 4 10. The petitioner made representations dated 03.01.2020, 27.01.2020 and 07.02.2020 before the Enquiry Officer requesting stay of the departmental proceeding since the same allegation was simultaneously being considered by the Criminal Court in the trial. 11. It is further relevant to mention that the petitioner chose not to file any reply/written statement of defence denying or disputing the charges communicated to him under the charge memo dated 04.04.2019. 12. The petitioner filed Original Application bearing OA/220/2020 before the CAT wherein he challenged the legality of the simultaneous proceedings (Departmental) during pendency of a criminal proceeding on the self same set of facts. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2020 disposed of the Original Application directing the competent authority to consider the writ petitioner’s representations dated 03.01.2020 and 07.02.2020 in this regard and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order before further proceeding, pursuant to the charge memo dated 04.04.2019. 13. The petitioner had appointed a Defence Assistant. Witnesses were examined in the enquiry. They were also cross-examined by the writ petitioner’s Defence Assistant. Thereafter, a date 07.02.2020 was fixed for recording statement by the petitioner (Chargesheeted Officer). On that date, the petitioner raised an allegation of bias 5 against the Enquiry Officer on a plea that the Enquiry Officer proceeded in the enquiry despite pendency of the selfsame charges before a Criminal Court. He also alleged procedural irregularity. 14. The departmental proceeding however resulted in the writ petitioner’s dismissal from service by an order dated 28.04.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 15. The petitioner thus filed an application for contempt before the Tribunal bearing CP/34/2020. 16. The respondents on the other hand filed a Miscellaneous Application bearing MA/306/2020 seeking recall/modification of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in OA/220/2020. 17. The writ petitioner had also challenged continuance of suspension in OA No. 249 of 2020. 18. The OA/249/2020, MA/306/2020, CP/34/2020 and OA/220/2020 all stood disposed of by the order impugned in the present writ petition. 19. Before the Enquiry Officer, the department examined the Inspector of Police, Rangat Police Station, the Vice Principal, Government Senior Secondary School (‘GSSS’ for short), Mannarghat, Vice Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Wimberlygunj, Vice Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Rangat, 6 Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Shoal Bay, Shri Sudipto Saha, Executive Engineer, NACD, APWD, Mayabunder and the Executive Officer to the Chief Engineer, APWD. 20. These seven witnesses were cross-examined by the Defence Assistant (DA) appointed by the writ petitioner. After examination and cross-examination of these witnesses, date was fixed for examination of the Charged Officer (Petitioner) on 07.02.2020. It is on this date that the petitioner submitted a petition expressing lack confidence in the enquiry authority; and seeking stay of the proceeding pending in the criminal cases. 21. It is relevant to mention here that, after participating in the proceedings throughout examination of all the departmental witnesses, the petitioner filed such application, and thereafter he refused to participate in the enquiry proceeding 22. The Presenting Officer submitted a written submission before the Enquiry Officer. At this juncture also, the writ petitioner chose not to file any reply to the written submission. 23. Considering the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, documents adduced in the enquiry, and the written submission of the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer held charges 7 proved and submitted the enquiry report dated 25.02.2020 to this effect. 24. The records reveal that the Enquiry Officer made efforts to serve copy of the enquiry report on the writ petitioner by sending the same to his residential address through special messenger but the same could not be served since the writ petitioner was absent from his residential address, where he was obliged to reside in, in terms of the order of suspension. After making attempts to serve copy of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority vide final order dated 28.04.2020 imposed the punishment of dismissal against the writ petitioner. 25. The writ petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, unsuccessfully. 26. Under the above noted factual matrix, it is submitted by learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is unsustainable as the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was unfair, and in violation of the principle of natural justice. The department examined witnesses before the Enquiry Officer other than the witnesses named in the list of witnesses contained in the charge memo. 8 27. As per the list of witnesses contained in the charge memo, the Head Master of the Government School, Shoal Bay was proposed to be examined. The department however examined one Shri V.T. Reddy, then working as Vice Principal of the school. Similarly a Vice Principal, GSSS, Wimberlygunj was examined instead of the Principal, a Vice Principal, GSSS Rangat was examined instead of the Principal. A further grievance was raised that the Panchayat Secretary, who was involved in seizure of the documents, was not examined. In his place, the current Panchayat Secretary was examined. Similar submission is advanced in respect of the Executive Engineer (Incharge), NACD, APWD, Mayabunder. It is submitted that he was not the Executive Engineer at the time the complaint was lodged. 28. It is also submitted that the Enquiry Officer could not proceed with the enquiry after expression of lack of faith and allegation of bias/malafide leveled by the writ petitioner on 07.02.2020. Referring to one Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1972 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel, Government of India, it is submitted that the moment the petitioner moved an application against the Enquiry Officer on grounds of bias, the proceedings were required to be stayed and the application referred along with the relevant materials, to the reviewing authority. 9 29. It is also submitted that the charge memo contains allegation of misconduct of the year of 1988 and 1989. The charge memo was issued on 04.04.2019. Therefore, the charges were stale, and could not be made the basis of the proceedings against the petitioner. In support of such submission the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738. 30. It is also submitted that the date of birth entered by the petitioner in the service records is derived from his matriculation certificate. The law by now is well settled that the matriculation certificate is the most preferred document to support date of birth. The complaint made by the third party; and any other document cannot be made the basis of discrediting a matriculation certificate. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vishnu alias Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 1 SCC 283 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2022) 8 SCC 602. 10 31. Lastly it is submitted that the writ petitioner was not served with the enquiry report prior to the order of dismissal dated 28.04.2020 being passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 32. Referring to the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B.Karunakar and others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, it is submitted that non-supply of enquiry report deprived the petitioner a vital opportunity of dealing with the findings of Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was deprived of his chance to point out/indicate the infirmity in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.04.2020 stands vitiated. 33. Learned advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order of suspension required the petitioner to stay at the Headquarter. He was obliged to maintain his residence at Rangat during the said period. The authorities, therefore, were well within their discretion to serve copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner at his residence in Rangat. Attempt was made to effect such service. The enquiry report was communicated in a sealed cover through a special dakman Shri Paulson, who visited the petitioner’s residential quarter at Rangat on 15.04.2020 at 6.00 PM. Thereafter, on 16.04.2020 at 12.30 PM through a dakman Shri Eswar Sarkar 11 (MTS). Both efforts were futile since the incumbent was not present at his residential quarter, and the same was found closed. 34. On 17.04.2020, another dakman Shri T.R. James (MTS) went to his quarter for delivery of the sealed cover when the quarter was found open, however, the petitioner was not present in his residential quarter. Copy of the peon book was showing these attempts of service. Therefore, the petitioner evaded and prevented service of a copy of the enquiry report; and he is responsible for non-service of the enquiry report. 35. The petitioner earlier abandoned the proceedings after cross- examination of the departmental witnesses. Thus, it is obvious that the writ petitioner was resorting to dilatory tactics consistently. 36. Firstly, the writ petitioner sought for stay of the proceeding during pendency of the criminal trial. Thereafter, his Defence Assistant cross-examined the departmental witnesses. When the occasion came for the petitioner’s examination in the enquiry, on 07.02.2020, he abandoned the proceedings. 37. These facts are to be viewed keeping in background a vital fact that the petitioner has chosen not to rebut/deny the allegations leveled in the charge memo, by filing written statement of defence. 12 38. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the respondents that the Tribunal took into consideration the stand of the respondents that the petitioner obtained the appointment relying on a fake date of birth. He thereafter relied upon an alleged Diploma in Civil Engineering of the year 1989 which was also found to be fake. The petitioner’s brazen attitude is obvious from the fact that though he joined service in 1988, he wanted to rely upon the diploma allegedly completed in 1989, i.e one year after his appointment. The same was impermissible as there was no scope for the petitioner to complete his diploma after having joined government service. Even if it is to be presumed for the sake of argument, without admitting to the same, that the certificate was not a fake one, the same having obtained without any permission to pursue the full time diploma course, would still constitute a misconduct. 39. Referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Employers in Relation to the Management of Bhalgora Area (Now Kustore Area) of M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. vs. Workmen being represented by Janta Mazdoor Sangh reported in LL 2021 SC 424 that since the foundation of petitioner’s appointment and submission of a higher qualification (Diploma in Civil Engineering) is founded on falsehood, the Tribunal rightly considered that having abused the legitimate process and by 13 resorting to falsehood and corrupt practices, the petitioner obtained the appointment. He thus could not be permitted to enjoy the fruit of such ill-gotten advantage. The Tribunal considered the breach of sanctity of the public employment by the writ petitioner, detrimental to the rightful beneficiaries, who remained deprived of opportunity. The Tribunal therefore relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court found there was no scope for the petitioner to be permitted to continue in employment. 40. It is therefore submitted that the order of the Tribunal impugned in the present writ proceeding does not require any interference. 41. We have considered the rival submissions, the facts emanating from the enquiry proceeding, the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal and the judgments cited at the bar. Insofar as the plea regarding other officials being produced in the enquiry from the schools and government offices, than those enumerated in the charge memo, we find no such issue was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The issue is raised for the first time in this proceeding. We further find that it is not in dispute that the witnesses called for by the department were holding high positions in the schools where the petitioner had studied and were called upon to depose in respect of transfer certificate and documents maintained in 14 the school in the routine discharge of official business. The witnesses were cross-examined by the Defence Assistant on behalf of the writ petitioner without any demur. Therefore, we find no substance in this plea, which is apparently a product of an afterthought. 42. As far as expression of lack of faith by the writ petitioner, we find that this plea was also taken after examination and cross- examination of the departmental witnesses. It is also a fact born from the record that the petitioner never submitted his statement of defence denying or dispute the charges contained in the charge memo. The proceeding was being conducted in respect of allegations for which criminal prosecution is also ongoing. The documents therefore were in the Court dealing with the criminal trial. Certified copies of the documents relied upon by the department were given to the writ petitioner. He did not raise any dispute regarding the genuineness of the certified copies. 43. However, we find that the writ petitioner abandoned the proceeding immediately after cross-examining the departmental witnesses. He not only abandoned the departmental proceeding, but also was found to be missing from his residential quarter, where he was otherwise obliged to stay as per the direction contained in the petitioner’s suspension orders. It is under such circumstances that copies of the enquiry report also could not be served on the writ 15 petitioner despite repeated attempts through special messenger, details of which we have recorded hereinabove. 44. The above noted plea regarding witnesses other than those enumerated in the charge memo, in view of our above consideration is devoid of any substance as the same does not support the petitioner contention that he was in any way deprived of an opportunity as contemplated in the principles of natural justice. 45. The petitioner abandoned the proceeding thereafter by submitting a letter before the Enquiry Officer expressing lack of faith in the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner therefore chose not to participate in the proceeding and stayed away from the departmental proceeding and his official residence, apparently to avoid service of any document in connection with the enquiry. 46. This Court, therefore, finds that by such conduct the plea of principles of natural justice is deemed to have been waived by the writ petitioner, and he is estopped from raising such question of non compliance with the principles of natural justice. 47. Our conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation and another vs. K.C. Rahi reported in (2008) 11 SCC 502 laid down the following:- 16 “7. The principle of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain a complaint of non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, one must establish that he has been prejudiced thereby for non-compliance with principle of natural justice. 8. In the instant case we have been taken through various documents and also from the representation dated 19-10-1993 filed by the respondent himself it would clearly show that he knew that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings at his own risk. In such event plea of principle of natural justice is deemed to have been waived and he is estopped from raising the question of non-compliance with principles of natural justice. In the representation submitted by him on 19-10-1993 the subject itself reads “DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES”. It is stated at the Bar that the respondent is a law graduate, therefore, he cannot take a plea of ignorance of law. Ignorance of law is no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate himself.” 48. The petitioner also raised the plea regarding non supply of the copy of the enquiry report by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of B. Karunakar (supra) which we find equally to be unsustainable. In this connection, we refer to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and other vs. Bishamber Das Dogra reported in (2009) 13 SCC 102, paragraphs 15 and 21 laid down the following: “15. However, the Court further held that : (B. Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727], SCC p. 757, para 30) “30. (v) … The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights.” The Court further observed as under : (B. Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727] , SCC pp. 757-58, paras 30-31) “30. (v) … They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial 17 to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an ‘unnatural expansion of natural justice’ which in itself is antithetical to justice. 31. … It is only if the court/tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment.” (emphasis added) … … … 21. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in case the enquiry report had not been made available to the delinquent employee it would not ipso facto vitiate the disciplinary proceedings as it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the delinquent employee has to establish that real prejudice has been caused to him by not furnishing the enquiry report to him.” 49. In the present case, apart from the fact that the petitioner chose to abandon the proceeding and did not participate in the departmental proceeding, we find that he has not made out a case of real prejudice having caused due to non supply of the copy of the enquiry report. The plea therefore is unsustainable. 50. Insofar as the plea regarding delay as ground to vitiate the enquiry relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh and another (supra), we find that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no doubt lays down proposition of law binding on this Court. However, the facts and circumstances in 18 which the judgment was rendered is at stark variance with the present case. In the case of Bani Singh and another (supra) irregularities alleged in 1975 -1977 were made the subject matter of the charge memo issued 12 years thereafter. It was not the case of the department, therein that they were not aware of the said irregularities. It is under such circumstance that the Apex Court held that it was unreasonable to think that the department would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the departmental proceeding. There being no satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay in issuance of charge memo, the Apex Court took a view that it would be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry. 51. In the present case, it is no body’s case that the department was knowing that the petitioner had obtained employment in the year 1988 on the basis of the fake certificate and thereafter in the year 1989 submitted a fake certificate for bettering his carrier prospect, so as to sustain of plea of delay. The department took steps for initiation of departmental proceeding only after the writ petitioner was made accused in the two criminal cases; and after the department came to know of such facts. The judgment in the case of Bani Singh and another (supra) therefore has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19 52. In the case of Union of India and others vs. Tarun Kumar Pramanik decided by the judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed in WP.CT 258 of 2024 by a Coordinate bench also relied upon by the petitioner, the Coordinate bench took note of a fact that the disagreement note in respect of an enquiry report was issued by the Disciplinary Authority 13 years after a direction to this effect was issued by the Appellate Authority resulting in the disciplinary proceeding itself being prolonged for about 16 years. No such facts arise for consideration in the present case. The judgment therefore does not help the writ petitioner’s claim. 53. Insofar as reliance placed by the petitioner on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vishnu alias Undrya (supra) and Rishipal Singh Solanki (supra), we find that the same have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The submission that the departmental enquiry could not proceed on the basis of the certified copies of the documents obtained from the criminal trial is unsustainable on the strength of the two citations for a basic reason that the two judgments relied upon arise out of criminal trial, considering the strict application of rules of evidence; and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applicable to a criminal trial. These two judgments discussed the admissibility of documents so as to fasten criminal liability on an accused in a 20 criminal trial. Reliance on these two judgments is misplaced in the present facts and circumstances where the allegation levelled in the enquiry were required to be established on a preponderance of probability. 54. It is by now a settled proposition of law that natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the straitjacket formula. Unless a person alleging violation of natural justice shows that non compliance with the principles of natural justice has resulted in some prejudice caused by non observance of principles of natural justice, the decision arrived at by the authorities cannot be vitiated or quashed. The reluctance of the applicant to deny/dispute the charges by filling a written statement of defence, his abandonment of the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer after cross-examination of defence witnesses, his refusal to file any response to the written submission filed by the respondent clearly shows that the applicant was himself abstaining from the departmental enquiry. 55. We are therefore, of the view that the pleas of allege procedural irregularity is unsustainable in facts and circumstances of the present case. 56. We therefore find that judgment of the learned Tribunal, impugned in the present writ proceeding does not require any 21 interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 57. The writ petition is dismissed. 58. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( MADHURESH PRASAD, J. ) I agree ( PRASENJIT BISWAS, J. )