Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1461 (CAL)

Ajit Kumar Ghosh v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-12-20

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE judgment of the Court was as follows: THE petitioner herein has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 13th January, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in case number O.A. 9333 of 2008 whereby and where under the said learned Tribunal permitted the State respondents to proceed with the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner ignoring the fact that the said petitioner has already retired from service. 2. MR. Ekramul Bari, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has retired from service on 29th February, 2008 and, therefore, the respondent authorities cannot proceed with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner herein. Mr. Bari further submits that the employer employee relationship comes to an end with the retirement of the concerned employee. 3. MR. Bari submits that unless there is allegation of Government suffering financial loss on account of misconduct or negligence of the retired employee, departmental proceedings after the retirement of the said employee cannot continue in terms of Rule 10 (1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. 4. MR. Bari referred to and relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gour Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 871, wherein this Court considering several earlier decisions of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court specifically held that the authorities are not entitled to proceed against the concerned employee after retirement due to the operation of law. Following the settled principles of law as laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the respondent authorities are not entitled to proceed with the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, after his retirement. 5. FOR the aforementioned reasons, entire departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner stands quashed. 6. FOR the identical reasons, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. This writ petition, therefore, stands allowed. 7. THE respondent authorities herein are directed to release all the admissible retiral benefits of the petitioner at an early date but positively within a-period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 8. IN the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. This writ petition, therefore, stands allowed. 7. THE respondent authorities herein are directed to release all the admissible retiral benefits of the petitioner at an early date but positively within a-period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 8. IN the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Xerox plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the appearing parties on usual undertaking. Chattopadhyay, J. Dasadhikari, J.