Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Somnath Dey Chowdhury vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 June, 2015

Author: Dipankar Datta

Bench: Dipankar Datta

                                                            1



52   4.6.15
Sc
                           W. P. No. 10656 (W) OF 2015
                                       ------------------

Somnath Dey Chowdhury

-vs.-

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Himadri Barua Mr. Biswajit Das.

....For the Petitioner.

Mr. Subhabrata Dutta.

....For the State.

None appears for the managing committee of Acharyya Prafullanagar Atul Krishna Roy Vidyayatan For Girls' High (H.S.) despite service. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today, shall be retained with the records.

The petitioner is a clerk employed in the school. His wife lodged a complaint pursuant whereto Canning Police Station F.I.R. No. 251(4)/2015 under Sections 498A/307/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. An arrest of the petitioner followed resulting in his detention in custody in excess of 48 hours. Ultimately, on 23rd April, 2015, the petitioner was released on bail.

In view of the petitioner's detention in custody in excess of 48 hours, he was deemed to be placed under suspension. However, by a written order dated 29th April, 2015, the decision of the managing committee to place the petitioner under suspension with effect from 17th April, 2015 was conveyed to him. The order of suspension is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

Mr. Barua, learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not involve himself in any criminal activity pertaining to official discharge of duty and that only after two months of marriage, the petitioner's wife falsely lodged a complaint against him. He prays for an order to set aside the order of suspension and a direction on the managing committee to allow the petitioner resume duty.

Whether or not a false complaint was lodged, ought to be decided by the relevant criminal court. The Management Rules, 1969, which governs the school, requires placing of an employee under suspension if he has been in custody in excess of 48 hours. The order of suspension issued by the managing committee does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, question of quashing such order does not and cannot arise.

However, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner is not guilty of dereliction of official duty as such, and that continuing him under suspension till such time the criminal court gives its final decision would result in payment of subsistence allowance to him at the applicable rate without extracting any work from him, serving no useful purpose, the managing committee of the school shall be at liberty to reconsider the issue of continuance of the petitioner under suspension if, at all, within seven days from date, he makes a prayer in writing before it seeking revocation of the order of suspension.

In the event the managing committee decides to reconsider and recall the order of suspension, the petitioner shall be allowed to resume duty and the period spent under suspension shall abide by the result of the decision of the criminal court.

On the contrary, if the managing committee decides to continue the petitioner under suspension, it shall be at liberty to do so provided cogent reasons are assigned in support of such decision.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order for costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

(Dipankar Datta, J.)