Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapas Kumar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 6 August, 2024
06.08.2024
rpan/49 WPST 4 of 2024
Tapas Kumar Roy
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Another
Mr. Kallol Basu,
Mr. Suman Banerjee,
Mr. Ayushman Dasgupta
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP,
Ms. Sangeeta Roy
... for the State/Respondents.
Records reveal that in contemplation of a
disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was placed
under suspension by a memo dated 03.08.2022 on the
basis of a report of the Additional Director General
and Inspector General of Police CID, West Bengal
dated 22.07.2022. He submitted representations to
the competent authority on 29.09.2022 and
16.11.2022 praying for revocation of the suspension
order. Thereafter he was communicated a memo dated
14.11.2022 whereby the suspension was directed to
be continued in terms of the recommendation of a
Review Committee dated 02.11.2022. By an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
the petitioner sought for the minutes of the Review
Committee but in vain and again by a memo dated
26.05.2023 the suspension was directed to be
continued in terms of the recommendation of a Review
Committee dated 25.04.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner preferred OA 558 of 2023 and during
pendency of the same the petitioner was
communicated a memo dated 17.10.2023 intimating
that the Review Committee met on 13.10.2023 and
recommended continuance of suspension until further
review. The OA 558 of 2023 was heard by the learned
Tribunal on 12.12.2023 but the petitioner's prayer for
interim order of stay of operation of the order of
suspension was not considered and parties were
directed to exchange their replies and rejoinder.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present
writ petition on 10.01.2024. In the midst thereof, the
OA again appeared before the learned Tribunal on
20.06.2024 but without granting any interim
protection the matter was deferred for hearing on
12.08.2024. In the midst thereof, by a memo dated
24.04.2024 the petitioner was intimated that the
fourth meeting of the Review Committee was held on
13.10.2023 and the Committee recommended
continuance of suspension until further orders and by
a further memo issued on the same date, the
Secretary, Vigilance Commission directed the Principal
Secretary, Home and Hills Department to intimate the
petitioner to meet with one Sri Partha Palit in the
office of the State Vigilance Commission along with the
documents detailed in the said memo for the purpose
of an enquiry. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued
against the petitioner by a memo date 23.07.2024. All
the documents have been brought on record by
supplementary affidavits. Let the same be kept on
record.
Drawing our attention to the memoranda dated
14.11.2022, 26.05.2023, 17.10.2023 and 24.04.2024,
Mr. Basu submits that in a most mechanical and
routine manner the Review Committee had directed
continuance of the order of suspension in
contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. Such
renewal is not even based on sound reasoning
contemporaneously available on the record.
He submits that the minutes of the Review
Committee, as sought for, had also not been furnished
to the petitioner and he had been compelled to suffer a
protracted period of suspension. The charge sheet had
ultimately been issued about two years after issuance
of the order of suspension on 03.08.2022 without any
explanation as regards the delay inordinate delay.
Mr. Basu submits that suspension is essentially
transitory or temporary in nature and must perforce
be of short duration. If such order of suspension is for
an indeterminate period or if its renewal has no
reason, it would be punitive in nature.
Drawing our attention to the last order passed
by the learned Tribunal on 20.06.2024, he submits
that the arguments, as advanced on behalf of the
petitioner, were simply glossed over and the prayer for
stay of operation of the order of suspension was
refused directing the parties to exchange their
pleadings and the matter has been made returnable
on 12.08.2024. However, till date no reply has yet
been filed on behalf of the State respondents. The
petitioner's right to speedy disposal has remained
suspended in a state of limbo. A fair, just and
reasonable procedure implicit in the Article 21 creates
a right in favour of the accused to be tried speedily.
He argues that as a model employer, the State
must conduct itself with high probity and candour and
ensure that its employees do not succumb to the
procedural rigmarole. In support of the arguments
advanced reliance has been placed upon the judgment
delivered in the case Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union
of India through its Secretary and Another, reported in
(2015) 7 SCC 291.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the State respondents submits
that the suspension is not a punishment. There exists
a strong prima facie case to keep the petitioner under
suspension, as would be explicit from the report of the
Additional Director General and Inspector General of
Police CID, West Bengal dated 22.07.2022.
He argues that there is no material on record to
suggest that the order of suspension suffers from any
procedural impropriety and as such question of
interference with the same at this juncture does not
arise moreso when a formal chargesheet has already
been issued. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal is still
in seisin of the matter. The arguments, as advanced
today before this Court, can well be urged before the
learned Tribunal when the matter is next fixed for
hearing on 12.08.2024. Any interference at this stage
would tantamount to prejudging an issue which is
pending consideration before the learned Tribunal. In
support of the arguments reliance has been place
upon the judgment delivered in the case of Union of
India and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147.
We have heard the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties and considered the materials
on record.
In a given case the prolonged suspension on
account of sheer inaction on the part of the appointing
authority may be unjustified and that the period of
suspension should ordinarily not be unnecessarily
prolonged in the absence of any plausible reason. If
the Government employee is kept under suspension,
the Government is required to pay him subsistence
allowance without taking any service from such
employee.
We have perused the orders passed by the
review committee on the last four occasions. The
orders, in our considered opinion, do not reflect any
reason towards continuance of the order of
suspension for about two years. In the midst thereof,
the petitioner has been issued a notice from the
Vigilance Commission to explain the details of his
property and expenditure incurred during a particular
financial year and ultimately a chargesheet has been
issued.
In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the currency
of a suspension order should not extend beyond three
months if within such period of the memorandum of
charges/chargesheet is not served upon the
delinquent officer/employee.
In the present case the order of suspension was
passed way back on 03.08.22 in contemplation of a
disciplinary proceeding and ultimately the chargesheet
has been issued about two years thereafter on
23.07.24.
In the said conspectus and considering the
nature of allegations and the gravity of the misconduct
as alleged, we are of the opinion that there is no
necessity to keep the petitioner under suspension any
further and accordingly, the order of suspension dated
3.08.2022 is set aside.
In view thereof, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the OA pending any further and the
same along with the present writ petition are disposed
of.
We, however, make it clear that to rule out the
possibility that the petitioner may interfere with the
disciplinary proceeding, the State respondents would
be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to an
appropriate office so as to sever any local or personal
contact that the petitioner may have and which he
may misuse for obstructing the proceedings.
The petitioner is also directed to extend all
cooperation to the respondents so that the disciplinary
proceeding may be concluded as expeditiously as
possible.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon
compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
