Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 942 (CAL)

Soma Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal

2012-10-11

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, TARUN KUMAR DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT Re : C.A.N. 8463 of 2012 1. This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 25th June, 2012 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge disposed of the writ petition upon issuing certain directions with regard to the holding the disciplinary proceedings afresh in respect of the appellant/petitioner herein. 2. The learned Advocate of the appellant/petitioner submits that the respondent-council has not yet allowed the appellant/petitioner to join the service although the order of dismissal has been specifically set aside by the Learned Single Judge. 3. The learned Advocate of the appellant/petitioner further submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error by not specifically directing the concerned respondent to allow the appellant/petitioner herein to resume the duties and also for making necessary payment of salaries and allowances. 4. There is no dispute that the Learned Single Judge was pleased set aside the impugned order of dismissal by the judgment and order under appeal dated 25th June, 2012. No appeal has been preferred on behalf of the respondent authorities. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent-council cannot refuse to allow the appellant/petitioner herein to resume the duties and pay admissible arrear salaries and allowances to the said appellant/petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the respondent-council to allow the appellant-petitioner to resume the duties forthwith and pay admissible salaries and allowances to the said appellant/petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date of joining the duties in terms of this order. 7. Needless to mention that after joining the duties, the appellant/petitioner will be entitled to receive admissible salary and allowances regularly. 8. However, we make it clear that we have not interfered with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for holding fresh disciplinary proceedings in respect of the appellant/petitioner herein. 9. With the aforesaid directions, we dispose of both the application as well as appeal upon treating the appeal as on day’s list. 10. In the facts of the present case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. 11. Let xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates of the respective parties on the usual undertakings.