Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 902 (CAL)

Saikat Banerjee v. State of West Bengal

2025-12-19

KRISHNA RAO

body2025
ORDER : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application assailing the decision of the Disciplinary Committee dated 2nd December, 2025 wherein the Committee have suspended the petitioners for participation in any tournaments/championships in the discipline of badminton held under or organized by or under the aegis of the “West Bengal Badminton Association” till 31st may, 2026 but such suspension shall not prevent the petitioners from registering themselves as per prevailing rules and regulatory norms or otherwise from taking part in corrective training and undergoing coaching, as suspension only relates to his participation in tournaments/championships. 2. On 5th September, 2025, the petitioners were placed under suspension for a period of six months with immediate effect pending further disciplinary proceedings. Being aggrieve with the said order of suspension, the petitioners have preferred a writ application before this Court being WPA No. 25240 of 2025. By an order dated 19th November, 2025, this Court has disposed of the writ application, giving liberty to the Association to issue show cause notice to the petitioners, if any, on or before 25th November, 2025 and the petitioners have been given to file reply by 27th November, 2025 and to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 29th November, 2025. This Court also directed the Disciplinary Committee to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a week from 29th November, 2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order and to communicate the same to the petitioners. Now, the Disciplinary Committee passed the impugned order. 3. Mr. Suddhastava Banerjee, Learned Advocate representing the petitioners submits that the enquiry has been initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the alleged complaint of Shri K. Prabhakar Rao but during the enquiry, the respondents failed to bring Shri K. Prabhakar Rao as witness and thus the petitioners could not get an opportunity to cross examine Shri K. Prabhakar Rao. 4. Mr. Banerjee further submits that on 7th September, 2025, Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao has sent an email intimating that the petitioners did not engaged any serious misconduct to create significant disturbance and was of the view that the petitioners deserves a fair chance and should not be judged to harshly based on this incident long. He submits that the committee failed to consider the email of Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao. 5. Mr. He submits that the committee failed to consider the email of Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao. 5. Mr. Banerjee further submits that in the show cause notice, the respondents have relied upon the statement of one Shri Mitra but Shri Mitra has not been examined during the enquiry and the petitioners could not get an opportunity of hearing to cross-examine the said Mr. Mitra. He further submits that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that at the time of personal hearing of the petitioners one Shri Asutosh Tiwari, one of the coaches appeared before the Committee but the name of Shri Asutosh Tiwari in the show cause notice, there is no mentioning about Mr. Tiwari. 6. Mr. Banerjee has drawn the attention of this Court to the verification report submitted by Mr. Tanmoy Banerjee and from the said report, it reveals that the main witness is one Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao and on the basis of the same, he has conducted the alleged enquiry and submitted the report. He submits that the enquiry report is based upon the complaint of Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao and one Mr. Mitra but none of those persons were examined during the enquiry. 7. In support of his submission, Mr. Banerjee has relied upon the judgment in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transports Corporation vs. G. Murali reported in (2018) 12 SCC 41 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the statements recorded by Corporation cannot be taken as evidence as no opportunity was given to cross-examine the respondents. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of K. Prabhakar Hegde vs. Bank of Baroda passed in Civil Appeal No. 6599 of 2025 dated 19th August, 2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principle of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference in natural justice had been observed. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Vidyasagar Pandey & Ors. passed in WPST No. 606 of 2009 dated 24 th November, 2010 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the disciplinary authority wherein the vital witness, namely, the complainant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to adduce evidence in support of his complaint, delinquent cannot be adjudged guilty by the disciplinary authority. 8. Mr. passed in WPST No. 606 of 2009 dated 24 th November, 2010 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the disciplinary authority wherein the vital witness, namely, the complainant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to adduce evidence in support of his complaint, delinquent cannot be adjudged guilty by the disciplinary authority. 8. Mr. Banerjee also relied upon emails dated 15th December, 2025 and 16th December, 2025 wherein the representative of Yonex Sunrise India Pvt. Ltd. has informed that they do not have and never had any association in any manner with Mr. Saikat Mitra. Mr. Banerjee submits that from 24th December, 2025, the badminton championship is going to be held and due to the impugned order, the petitioners are not in a position to participate in the said tournament and as such he prayed for interim order. 9. Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent no. 3 submits that show cause notice issued to the petitioners and the petitioners have submitted their reply and thereafter the Committee has conducted an enquiry by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for cross-examination of the witnesses appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and the total proceedings have been conducted through video recording. 10. Mr. Majumdar submits that the petitioners could have examined Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao but they had also failed to examine the same as witness on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that in the mail dated 7th September, 2025, Shri K. Prabhakar Rao has not been denied with regard to his complaint made on September, 2025 or he has not stated that the said complaint was false or incorrect. In the email dated 7th September, 2025, Shri K. Prabhakar Rao has admitted the incident. 11. Mr. Majumdar submits that on receipt of complaint, immediately two experienced Managers of West Bengal Badminton Association went to the hotel and has enquired the same and confirmed that the complaint made by Shri K. Prabhakar Rao is correct. He further submits that the petitioners have never challenged the enquiry report and thus the enquiry report is uncontroverted. 12. Mr. Majumdar submits if a person with minutely read the email of Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao dated 7th September, 2025, it will appear that either Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao has influenced by the petitioners or had a soft corner for the petitioners. 12. Mr. Majumdar submits if a person with minutely read the email of Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao dated 7th September, 2025, it will appear that either Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao has influenced by the petitioners or had a soft corner for the petitioners. He further submits that it is not proved by the petitioners how they got the said email nor they have produced Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao during the enquiry to corroborate or to prove the said email. He submits that no credence could be given to the said mail to Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao without any cogent evidence. 13. Mr. Majumdar further submits that during the enquiry, the petitioners have only taken the stand that the no such incident was occurred and the petitioners have been firstly implicated but as per the record, there are sufficient evidence wherein the allegation against the petitioners have been proved and accordingly the committee has passed the order of suspension of the petitioners. 14. Mr. Majumdar submits that the writ petitioners filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as the order passed by the Committee is an appealable order. He further submits that the interim order as prayed for by the petitioners is granted, the same would amounts to grant the final relief. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that by way of an interim order, the order of suspension, termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceeding in court. 15. Mr. Swapan Kr. Dutta, Learned Government Pleader representing the State submits that the impugned order passed by the Committee is appealable order. He has relied upon Rule 16 of the West Bengal Badminton Association, Constitution as amended on 26th March, 2016 wherein the provision of appeal is provided. He further relied upon the communication dated 3rd December, 2025, by which the impugned decision of the Committee was forwarded to the petitioners, in the said communication it was informed to the petitioners that if the petitioners are aggrieved with the decision, the petitioners may prefer an appeal under Rule 16 of the Constitution. 16. He further relied upon the communication dated 3rd December, 2025, by which the impugned decision of the Committee was forwarded to the petitioners, in the said communication it was informed to the petitioners that if the petitioners are aggrieved with the decision, the petitioners may prefer an appeal under Rule 16 of the Constitution. 16. The petitioners have challenged the impugned decision of the Committee wherein the Committee has suspended the petitioners from participation in any tournaments/ championships in the discipline of badminton held under or organized by or under the aegis of the West Bengal Badminton Association till 31st March, 2026. The main issue raised by the petitioners in the present writ application that on the basis of the information of Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao, the Committee has initiated proceeding against the petitioners but the said Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao has not examined. The petitioners has also relied upon the preliminary reports submitted by Tanmoy Banerjee wherein in the said report also it is mentioned that Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao has made a complaint, and on receipt of the complaint, the enquiry was conducted and found that the complaint made by Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao is true but the Committee has not examined Shri K. Prabhakar Rao and the petitioners could not get an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Prabhakar Rao. 17. The petitioners have also raised further contentions that Saikat Mitra has informed to the reception that the petitioners were causing nuance and shouting filthy languages but said Mtira was not examined during the evidence. They also stated that in the show cause notice, there is no name of Asutosh Tiwari but he was present during the enquiry. He submits that the Committee surprisingly has brought Shri Tiwari as witness during the enquiry without any notice to the petitioners. 18. The petitioners have also relied upon email issued by Mr. K Prabhkar Rao wherein he has stated that the petitioners did not engaged in any serious misconduct or create significant disturbance. 19. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned decision of the Committee dated 2nd December, 2025 along with the order of the suspension dated 5th September, 2025. If at this stage, any interim order is passed in favour of the petitioners, the same would tantamount to grant of final relief to the petitioners. In the case of Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. If at this stage, any interim order is passed in favour of the petitioners, the same would tantamount to grant of final relief to the petitioners. In the case of Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 697, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : “12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case — of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.” 20. The petitioners have preferred the present writ application mainly on the ground of principle of natural justice that the petitioners could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and the Committee has bring other witness whose name is not appearing in the show cause notice. The said issued is required to be decided after the giving an opportunity to the respondents to file affidavit so that the respondents can disclosed all the documents which they have relied upon while passing the impugned order. 21. The said issued is required to be decided after the giving an opportunity to the respondents to file affidavit so that the respondents can disclosed all the documents which they have relied upon while passing the impugned order. 21. As regard the issue of maintainability raised by the respondents that as per Rule 16 of the West Bengal Badminton Association, Constitution, the impugned order is appealable but considering the pleadings and the grounds for filing the present application challenging the impugned decision of the Committee, this Court finds that the petitioners have filed the writ application on the ground of principle of natural justice as the respondents have not granted an opportunity of hearing to cross examination of the complainant and have not followed the due process of law while conducting the enquiry by the committee. Thus, the writ petition is maintainable. 22. This Court also finds that the respondents have taken a specific ground that though Shri K. Prabhakar Rao has not examined but the email which the petitioners are relying upon in the said email, Shri K. Prabhakar Rao has admitted the incident but he has only requested for not imposing any harsh punishment to the petitioners. 23. Considering the above, this Court finds that the petitioners have not made out any such strong prima facie case for granting an interim relief which would tantamount to grant of final relief. 24. In view of the above, prayer for grant of interim order is refused.