Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Banerjee vs High Court Of Calcutta & Ors on 6 October, 2023
06.10.2023
Item No.34
PG/KS
Ct. No.1
M.A.T. 1315 of 2021
With
IA No. CAN 2 of 2022
Pradip Banerjee
Vs.
High Court of Calcutta & Ors.
Mr. Surajit Samanta
Mr. Biswajit Samanta
Mr. Sohini Samanta..........for the appellant
Mr. Shamim ul Bari ....................for the State
Mr. L. K. Gupta
Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee
.....for the High Court Administration
1. None appears for the appellant.
2. We have heard Mr. Lakshmi Gupta, learned senior
advocate along with Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned
advocate for the High Court Administration.
3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against an
interim order dated 6th December, 2021 passed in
W.P.A.19237 of 2021. In the said order, the
learned Single Bench after hearing the submissions
made by the parties held that there is no scope for
passing any interim order as the Court could be
slow in interfering with disciplinary proceedings
either at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet or
even thereafter till the disciplinary proceeding is
brought to a logical conclusion unless patent
illegality is explicit on the face of record.
4. Further, the learned Single Bench was of the prima
facie opinion that it did not find any such patent
2
illegality at the relevant stage to interfere with the
disciplinary proceeding making it clear that if the
appellant/writ petitioner ultimately succeeds, he
will get all benefits.
5. Further, the Court observed that the appellant/writ
petitioner will also have all the grounds available to
him to challenge the enquiry report before the
disciplinary authority. Ultimately, the Court held
that the matter requires to be heard after affording
the respondents an opportunity of hearing to put
forth their stand on the affidavits. Affidavit-in-
Opposition was directed to be filed in six weeks
from the said date and, reply thereto, if any, to be
filed two weeks thereafter. Liberty was granted to
mention for inclusion of the matter in the list for
hearing.
6. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant had
preferred this intra-Court appeal, in which a
judgment was rendered on 13th April, 2022.
Thereafter, interlocutory application in IA No. CAN
2 of 2022 was filed in which directions were issued
from time to time. The sum and substance of the
direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench is by
directing the High Court Administration to send
certain records for forensic examination by referring
the matter to the serious fraud investigation,
Government of India. Subsequently, the order was
modified on 19th June, 2023 and the matter was
directed to be referred to the Commissioner of
Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate.
7. The question would be as to whether by way of an
interim direction, such a reference could be made,
more particularly, when the writ petition is still
pending and affidavits have been called for.
8. In our prima facie view, at this juncture, the
question of directing the Commissioner of Police,
Barrackpore Police Commissionerate to enquire
into the matter will have a serious impact on the
decision that is required to be taken in the writ
petition, which is now pending in the file of the
learned Single Bench.
9. In the light of the above, the order and direction
issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench directing the
matter to be referred to the Commissioner of Police,
Barrackpore Police Commissionerate shall remain
stayed until further orders.
10. List the matter on 12th January, 2024.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
