Padma Ranbaj vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1526 Cal

23.02.2021.
Item no.142.
Court No.13
   ap
                           W.P.A. No. 8650 of 2020
                         (Through Video Conference)

                               Padma Ranbaj
                                    Versus
                       The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                   Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra.
                                             ...For the petitioner.
                   Mr. Susanta Paul,
                   Mr. Tapan Pramanick.
                                                ...For the State.

                   The writ petitioner claims to have been working

           as an Anganwari Worker in the year 2007. The

           petitioner was implicated and indited in a proceeding

           under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian

           Penal Code sometimes on 22nd October, 2019.

                   A charge-sheet has since been filed and the said

           proceedings are pending before the learned Sessions

           Judge, Jhargram in Criminal Misc. Case No. 76 of

           2020.

                   The petitioner was, after the FIR and pursuant

           to his detention in custody for two months, disengaged

           from the contractual service as an Anganwari Worker.

                   Counsel for the writ petitioner would argue

           before this Court by reference to a judgment of the

           Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh

           - Vs. - Municipal Council, Sanaur reported in

           (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 584 and a Division

           Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Swapan
                                 2




Kumar Maity - Vs. - South Eastern Railways &

Ors. reported in 2006 SCC Online Cal 483, that the

petitioner should be treated at par with permanent

employee, who could not have been terminated merely

for being implicated in criminal proceeding. He would

also argue that the criminal proceedings against the

petitioner had nothing to do with the service being

rendered to the I.C.D.S. Project. He further submits

that disengagement from service was, therefore, illegal.

      Counsel for the State would argue that the

petitioner having been charged under an offence, inter

alia, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has

suffered a disqualification from holding the contractual

post. The petitioner cannot be equated to a permanent

employee of the State. It is also submitted by the

Counsel for the State that the petitioner as Anganwari

Worker is required to help the children and women

and would not be in an appropriate state of mind to

discharge his duties.

      Since an interesting question of law has been

raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, the State may

file affidavit-in-opposition.

      Let the affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ

application be filed by the State respondents within

three weeks from date. Reply, if any, thereto be filed

one week thereafter.

Liberty to mention the matter for early hearing

after completion of pleadings.

This Court is not inclined to pass any interim

order at this stage.

The compilation prepared by the Counsel for the

petitioner may be kept with the record.

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of

this order on usual undertakings.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)