Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Saroj Kumar Guha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 September, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
FMA 755 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
FMA 755 of 2024
With
IA No.: CAN 1 of 2024
Saroj Kumar Guha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
{
For the appellant : Mr. Amlan Jyoti Sengupta, Advocate
Heard & Judgment on : September 2, 2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 2, 2024
passed in WPA 14727 of 2006.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition assailing an order passed in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated as against the appellant/writ petitioner.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant
was initially engaged as a contractual employee. His tenure of
employment was extended from time to time. Thereafter, such extension
was not granted. Appellant moved a writ petition. He refers to orders
passed in such writ petition.
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, subsequent
Calcutta
4 th of September
2024 04:29:34
PM to first writ petition, the appellant was taken back in service. A
FMA 755 of 2024
disciplinary proceedings was initiated. In such disciplinary proceedings,
he was found guilty. He refers to the order passed by the disciplinary
authority.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, other
contractual employees engaged along with the appellant were regularized.
Appellant was unfairly treated.
6. We perused the materials made available on record.
7. Appellant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange in respect of a
contractual appointment. Appellant joined as Junior Assistant at a
Tourist Lodge at Siliguri on April 13, 1991. His appointment was on
contract basis. The period of contract was extended from time to time.
8. During the validity of the period of the contract, appellant was issued a
show-cause notice dated July 9, 1992 with regard to discrimination in
telephone bills and why some calls which were made were not entered in
the trunk booking register. Thereafter, by a letter dated August 16,
1992, the services of the appellant was terminated with effect from such
date without holding any disciplinary proceedings and without affording
the appellant reasonable opportunity of hearing.
9. Appellant preferred an appeal against the order of termination dated
August 16, 1992. Such appeal was not decided till 1993. Thereafter,
appellant moved the High Court by way of a writ petition being C.O.
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of No.3292 (W) of 1993. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order
Calcutta
4 th of September
2024 04:29:34
PM dated December 17, 1998 requiring the appellate authority to dispose of
FMA 755 of 2024
the appeal within six weeks from the date of communication of such
order.
10. Despite communication of the order dated December 17, 1998 passed in
the writ petition, no steps were taken for disposal of the appeal.
Appellant filed another writ petition being W.P. No.7824 (W) of 1999.
Such writ petition was disposed of by an order dated July 3, 2002 where
the learned Single Judge was pleased to quash the order of termination.
Learned Single Judge directed reinstatement of the appellant. The
authorities were directed to conduct enquiry by giving appropriate charge
sheet in accordance with the service rules and conduct disciplinary
proceedings, if required.
11. Appellant filed an application for contempt alleging violation of the order
dated July 3, 2002 passed in W.P. No.7824 (W) of 1999. Such contempt
petition was disposed of by an order dated June 10, 2003 by observing
that subsistence allowance although paid in part, the disciplinary
proceeding was not concluded. The authorities were directed to pay the
subsistence allowance till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding.
The second contempt petition was disposed of by the learned Judge on
July 22, 2004 without passing any order. Application for recalling of the
order dated July 22, 2004 was disposed of on May 5, 2005 refusing to
recall the order.
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of 12. Enquiry with regard to the alleged misdeeds of the appellant was
Calcutta
4 th of September
2024 04:29:34
PM undertaken. Appellant was essentially charged with defalcation of funds
FMA 755 of 2024
of the employees. Enquiry report was considered by the disciplinary
authority. Disciplinary authority found the charges as against the
appellant to be proved. Disciplinary authority passed an order of
dismissal from service as against the appellant. Appellant assailed the
order of the disciplinary authority in the writ petition which was disposed
of by the impugned order.
13. Appellant was heard at the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings
stage. Breach of principles of natural justice causing any prejudice to the
appellant is not established. Decision of the disciplinary authority
contains reasons. Quantum of punishment is in the domain of the
employer. Punishment imposed cannot be said to disproportionate to the
charges established. Charge of defalcation of money stands established
as against the appellant.
14. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
15. FMA 755 of 2024 along with all connected applications are dismissed
without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
16. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS (AD)
High Court of
Calcutta
4 th of September
2024 04:29:34
PM
