Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bibekananda Bera vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 August, 2023
21.08.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DL-8 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(PP) APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 16474 of 2023
Bibekananda Bera
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Arunima Lala
...for the petitioner.
Ms. Tuli Sinha
....for the State.
This is a third round of litigation. The petitioner
prays for disbursal of the death benefits of his aunt.
His claim is that he was the nominee of his aunt and
his name appears in the service book of his deceased
aunt.
By an order dated March 2, 2023, this Court
directed a personal hearing to be given to the
petitioner by the Block Medical Officer of Health
(BMOH), Purba Medinipur. Such personal hearing
was given.
It appears from the order passed by the BMOH
that the petitioner refused to fill up the questionnaire
handed over by the BMOH to the petitioner. He
prayed for being represented by a legal representative.
Furthermore, he was not able to produce the service
book pursuant to which the petitioner is claiming to
be the nominee of his aunt during the personal
hearing.
2
Ms. Lala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the BMOH proceeded
without complying with the principles of natural
justice. She refers to a judgment reported in AIR
1983 SC 109 (The Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni
and Others) to contend that the petitioner should
have been allowed to take the help of a legal
practitioner to defend himself at the time of enquiry.
Denial of the petitioner being represented by a legal
practitioner was denial of a reasonable opportunity to
defend oneself and, therefore, was violative of the
essential principles of natural justice viatiating the
enquiry.
Ms. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State respondents submits that the petitioner
not only insisted that he should be represented by a
legal practitioner but was also not able to produce the
relevant document during the course of hearing.
Considering rival the submissions of the parties
and the materials placed on record, this Court is of
the view that the judgment of Dilipkumar (supra)
does not come to the aid of the petitioner in any
manner.
This Court on March 2, 2023 did not find the
petitioner required to be represented by a legal
practitioner. The aforesaid judgment was passed in
the context of a full scale disciplinary proceedings.
Furthermore, there was also a regulation that came
into force which held that the petitioner should be
allowed to defend himself by a legal practitioner once
the department was represented by legally trained
minds. This is not a case of domestic enquiry where a
large number of witnesses are examined nor are
complicated questions of fact and law to be decided.
Therefore, the question of the petitioner not
being represented by a legal representative being
violative of the principles of natural justice, does not
and cannot arise.
On the issue whether the documents required by
the State authorities were produced during the
personal hearing, this Court permits the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner to take necessary
instructions in the matter.
Let the matter appear for further consideration
under the same heading "Motion" on September 18,
2023.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Hon'ble Court.
(Lapita Banerji, J.)
