Arjun Paul @ Arjun Kumar Paul vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1658 Cal

Item Nos.
 21 wt 22
30.03.2022
 KOLE
                             MAT 377 of 2022
                                  With
                           IA No. CAN 1 of 2022

                      Arjun Paul @ Arjun Kumar Paul
                                   -Vs.-
                      The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                                   With
                             MAT 366 of 2022
                                  With
                           IA No. CAN 1 of 2022

                    Boinchi C.A.D.C. Berala Sech 'O'
                          S.K.U.S. Ltd. & Ors.
                                 -Vs.-
                  Arjun Pal @ Arjun Kumar Pal & Ors.


             Mr. K. K. Pathak,
             Mr. S. Panja,
                              ... for the appellants in MAT 377 of 2022 and
                           for the private respondent in MAT 366 of 2022.

Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. P. Mukherjee, Mr. S. Chakraborty, Mr. P. Dutta, ... for the respondent no. in MAT 377 of 2022 and for the appellants in MAT 366 of 2022.

Mr. Pradip Kr. Roy, Mr. J. Roy, ... for the State in MAT 377 of 2022.

Mr. L. M. Mahata, Mr. R. De, ... for the State in MAT 366 of 2022.

By consent of the parties the appeals and the

connected applications are taken up for hearing together.

These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and

order dated February 22, 2022, whereby the learned Single

Judge disposed of WPA 19898 of 2021. The order was

subsequently corrected by an order dated February 25, 2022

without any material alteration.

The writ petitioner was working as an Assistant

Manager in Boinchi C.A.D.C. Berala Sech 'O' S.K.U.S.

Limited (in short the 'Society'). He was served with a show

cause notice dated April 24, 2020. The writ petitioner

answered the show cause notice by a written statement dated

April 25, 2020. By an order dated April 26, 2020, the

Society placed the writ petitioner under suspension with

effect from April 27, 2020. By an order dated May 18, 2020,

the Secretary of the Society communicated to the writ

petitioner that the Board had decided to terminate the writ

petitioner's service with retrospective effect from April 27,

2020 i.e., from the date of suspension. Being aggrieved, the

writ petitioner challenged the termination order before the

learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge set aside the order of

termination primarily on the ground of breach of the

principles of natural justice. The learned Judge held that

Sub-rules 13 to 17 of Rule 106 of the West Bengal

Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011, lay down a procedure for

holding a disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent

employee. These Rules were not followed. The writ

petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of explaining

the charges against him. The learned Judge while setting

aside the termination order, directed that the writ petitioner

will be treated to be "under suspension" with immediate

effect. He shall be paid his subsistence allowance along with

arrears in ten equal monthly installments. The employer will

be at liberty to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against

him in terms of the applicable rules.

The writ petitioner has preferred MAT 377 of 2022

against the aforesaid order, being aggrieved by the portion

whereby the learned Judge directed him to be treated under

suspension. According to him, the suspension order having

merged with the termination order, while setting aside the

termination order, the learned Judge should have also set

aside the suspension order.

We are unable to accept the contention of the

appellant/writ petitioner. The approach of the learned

Judge is quite reasonable. The learned Judge has granted

liberty to the Employer-Society to conduct the disciplinary

proceedings. In contemplation thereof, it was appropriate to

direct that the writ petitioner would be treated to be under

suspension. We do not see that the writ petitioner can have

any legitimate grievance in that regard.

MAT 377 of 2022 is, accordingly, dismissed.

MAT 366 of 2022 is an appeal of the Employer-

Society from the same order. The Society says that the writ

petitioner has defalcated funds to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs by

forging the signature of the Secretary of the Society. There is

also apparently a written admission of the writ petitioner

that he has indulged in such irregularity. Mr. Mukherjee,

learned Advocate, representing the Society says that in view

of such admission, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated.

Further, he says that since the writ petitioner has admitted

committing the offence, he should not be paid subsistence

allowance. Mr. Mukherjee also submits that the learned

Judge should not have directed that the appeal filed by the

writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority against the

order of termination would be treated as disposed of, as by

doing so the learned Judge has acted as an Appellate

Authority.

We are unable to agree with the contentions advanced

by Mr. Mukherjee. The learned Judge noted that the writ

petitioner's appeal had been left pending for two years

without the same being considered by the Appellate

Authority. Since the learned Judge found that the

termination order was passed in violation of the principles of

natural justice and the learned Judge was setting aside the

order, it was entirely appropriate on her part to direct that

the appeal of the writ petitioner shall be treated as disposed

of.

In so far as the subsistence allowance is concerned, if

the applicable Rules provide for payment of such allowance,

the appellant-Society must do so.

We are in agreement with the entirety of the order

impugned before us. The termination of the writ petitioner's

service was in blatant breach of the cardinal principles of

natural justice. Such order cannot be permitted to remain.

We find no reason to interfere with the order

impugned before us which we hereby affirm. We reiterate

that the appellant-Society would be at liberty to initiate

disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner in

accordance with the applicable Rules and will be at liberty to

take the same to its logical conclusion after observing the

principles of natural justice. The disciplinary proceedings, if

any, should be completed as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of six months from date.

Mr. Mukherjee says that a substantial sum of money

is due from the writ petitioner to the Society on account of

loan. The writ petitioner should be directed to refund the

same to the Society. Learned Advocate for the writ

petitioner disputes such contention. In any event, in this

proceeding, we are not minded to pass any such direction. If

any loan is outstanding from the writ petitioner to the

Society, the Society would obviously be at liberty to take

steps for recovery of the same in accordance with law.

The appeals and the connected applications are

disposed of accordingly.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be

supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)