Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 150 (CAL)

GOPAL BANERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2004-02-27

SOUMITRA PAL

body2004
SOUMITRA PAL, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was appointed as a Memo Writer in the year 1965 by the Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, he got promoted and ultimately he was posted as Samabayika-in-Charge with effect from 1. 4. 1997. He was also directed to perform the additional duties of the purchase officer from 10. 11. 97. The petitioner contended that suddenly by an order dated 31. 3. 1998 the respondent No. 3 directed Dwijen Chatterjee, Supervisor and working in the Accounts Section to take over the charge of Samabayika section of the respondent No. 4 from the petitioner who was then in-charge of the Samabayika Section, after the annual verification of stock/cash of the Samabayika Section for the year 1997-98. In the said order the petitioner was also directed to make over charge of the Samabayika Section to Dwijen chatterjee after the annual verification of stock/cash for the year 1997-1998 was over and to continue to work in the Accounts Section until further orders. ( 2 ) THE petitioner stated that on receipt fo the said order dated 31. 3. 1998 he made over charge of the Samabayika Section on the very same day to Dwijen Chatterjee. Thereafter, on 2. 6. 1998 he received a communication from respondent No. 3 being Annexure 'e' to the writ petition that on the basis of a report of the Manager of the Society he was suspended from the service of the Society for gross financial irregularities committed by him as Samabayika-in-Charge during the accounting year 1997-98. In the said letter it was also intimated that appropriate action will be taken against him in due course in consultation with the Board of Administrators of the Society. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said suspension order dated 2. 6. 1998 issued by the respondent No. 3 had moved the writ petition. ( 3 ) IT appears from the records that on 30. 06. 1998 directions were issued to file the affidavit-in-opposition within eight weeks and reply, if any, by two weeks thereafter. The writ petition was directed to come up after 12 weeks for final hearing. An interim order was passed on 30. 6. ( 3 ) IT appears from the records that on 30. 06. 1998 directions were issued to file the affidavit-in-opposition within eight weeks and reply, if any, by two weeks thereafter. The writ petition was directed to come up after 12 weeks for final hearing. An interim order was passed on 30. 6. 1998 staying the impugned order of suspension of the writ petitioner by the respondent No. 3 pending the hearing of the writ petition since there was no approval of the Board of the said Society under Rule 52 (2) (i) of the west Bengal Society Rules, 1987. Gist of the order dated 30. 6. 1998 alongwith copies of the writ petition were served on the respondents and affidavit of service was filed. Thereafter, no subsequent dates of hearing the respondent No. 4 was represented by their counsel. Though directions have been issued to file the affidavit-in-opposition, no such affidavit has been filed controverting the allegations in the writ petition. There is no represention on behalf of the respondents during the final hearing. ( 4 ) MR. Manajit Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had been illegally put under suspension by the respondent No. 3 since 2. 6. 98 on the basis of the report of the Manager of the Society of alleged gross financial irregularities committed by him as Samabayika-in-Charge during the accounting year 1997-98 yet no copy of the said report was ever furnished to the petitioner. Thereby the petitioner was not able to controvert the report and as such the impugned order of suspension dated 2. 6. 98 was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and illegal. It was further submitted that no enquiry whatsoever had been started till this date. It was submitted that in spite of the interim order dated 30. 6. 1998 staying the order of suspension since it was without any approval of the Board of the said Society under Rule 52 (2) (i) of the West Bengal Co-operative Rules, 1987 the petitioner is still under suspension. Submission was made that the petitioner is not getting any suspension allowance or any other allowance whatsoever during this period of suspension and is a victim of circumstances. Prayer was made that the petitioner should be reinstated with all back wages from 2. 6. 98, that is the date of suspension. Submission was made that the petitioner is not getting any suspension allowance or any other allowance whatsoever during this period of suspension and is a victim of circumstances. Prayer was made that the petitioner should be reinstated with all back wages from 2. 6. 98, that is the date of suspension. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner. I find that the writ petition should succeed. Though the respondents were served with a copy of the writ petition and were informed about the order passed on 30. 6. 98 yet the said respondents have not filed their affidavit-in-opposition controverting the allegations made in the writ petition. However, the respondent No. 4 was represented on some of the dates when the matter was taken up for hearing. Therefore, the Statements and allegations made on affidavit by the writ petitioner are taken to be correct since there is no affidavit-in-opposition by the respondents controverting the same. In my view, the action of the respondent No. 3 in suspending the petitioner on 2. 6. 98 on the basis of the report of the Manager was totally unjustified, mala fide and illegal. Hence, the interim order dated 30. 6. 98 is confirmed. The order dated 2. 6. 98 suspending the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be treated to be in service by the respondent No. 4 since 2. 6. 98. The respondent No. 4 shall pay to the petitioner the back wages alongwith 7% interest calculated from 2. 6. 98 within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall pay Rs. 100 GMs each to the petitioner as costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order be given to the learned advocates, if applied for. .