Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Utpal Kumar Basu vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 September, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
WP.ST 131 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
WP.ST 131 of 2024
Utpal Kumar Basu
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Surajit Samanta, Advocate
Ms. Anindita Roy, Advocate
Ms. Sohini Samanta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee
Ld. Sr. Advocate & Ld.AGP
Ms. Ashmita Chakraborty, Advocate
Heard & Judgment on : September 4, 2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
Writ petition is directed against an order dated June 10, 2024 passed in
MA-52 of 2024 (OA-241 of 2020) by the West Bengal Administrative
Tribunal.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, writ
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS petitioner challenged the vires of Rules 10(3) and 10(4) of the West Bengal
High Court of
Calcutta
5 th of September
2024 05:15:11 Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. He submits
PM
WP.ST 131 of 2024
that, initially, interim order prayed for was refused by the order dated
August 14, 2020. Refusal of the interim order was limited to the stage
then obtaining. State did not get an opportunity to file a reply was the
stage then obtaining. He submits that, thereafter, State submitted a
reply in the pending proceedings. Writ petitioner/applicant renewed the
prayer for grant of interim stay of the departmental proceedings which
was rejected by the impugned order.
3. Referring to the impugned order dated June 10, 2024, learned Advocate
appearing for the writ petitioner/applicant submits that, the interim
order was rejected on the ground that, there is only one Member of the
West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, a litigant should not
suffer due to the absence of the adjudicator in a Tribunal.
4. State is represented.
5. We find from the records that, a show-cause notice was issued to the writ
petitioner on June 20, 2018. Writ petitioner submitted a response to the
show-cause notice on June 27, 2018. A charge sheet was issued as
against the writ petitioner on January 3, 2020. Writ petitioner was
required to appear before the Anti-Corruption Wing. Writ petitioner
appeared before such Wing. Disciplinary proceedings are pending. Writ
petitioner sought to assail the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and
challenged the vires of Rules 10(3) and 10(4) of the West Bengal Services
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
Calcutta
5 th of September
2024 05:15:11
PM
WP.ST 131 of 2024
6. Writ petitioner filed OA-241 of 2020. In such OA-241 of 2020, writ
petitioner filed an application for interim protection which was considered
and rejected on August 14, 2020. After a lapse of about four years, writ
petitioner applied afresh for the purpose of interim protection which
prayer was rejected by the order dated June 10, 2024. Change
circumstances for renewing the prayer for interim order is that, the State
submitted a reply to the original application.
7. Both the orders dated August 14, 2020 and June 10, 2024 are assailed
by way of the present writ petition.
8. Initial order of rejection of the interim order dated August 14, 2020
contains elaborate reasons as to why interim order was refused. Refusal
to pass interim order on August 14, 2020 was not assailed till the present
writ petition in 2024. Reasoning of the order dated August 14, 2020 is
not being challenged. Rather, it is contended that, since the interim
order was refused on August 14, 2020 and was limited to that stage and
since, subsequent events occurred, writ petitioner is entitled to interim
protection.
9. The subsequent event as noted above is the filing of a reply by the State
to the original application. We are of the view that filing such reply to
the original application is not a substantial alteration of the
circumstances warranting revisit of the prayer for grant of interim
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of protection. Petitioner cannot be allowed repeated bites at the interim
Calcutta
5 th of September
2024 05:15:11
PM cherry. Moreso when the initial order of refusal went unchallenged.
WP.ST 131 of 2024
10. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present writ petition.
11. WP.ST 131 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
12. Court is informed that, there is only one Member present in the West
Bengal Administrative Tribunal. Request of the writ petitioner, therefore,
for expeditious disposal of the original application is disposed of by
requesting the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal to hear and decide
the writ petition as expeditiously as possible immediately on formation of
the quorum for doing the same.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
13. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
(AD)
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of
Calcutta
5 th of September
2024 05:15:11
PM
