Kalyani Prasad Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 November, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Kalyani Prasad Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 November, 2013

Bench: Biswanath Somadder

                                           1


                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                                     APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder


                                WP No. 7313 (W) of 2011

                            Kalyani Prasad Chakraborty
                                         -Versus-
                             The State of West Bengal & Ors.



      For the petitioner         :      Mr. Anshuman Chakraborty

      For the Respondent No.

       3,4,5,6 & 7     :                Mr. P. C. Bhattacharya
                                        Mr. R.C. Gayen

      For the State              :      Mr. Md. Yasin Ali
                                        Ms. Tapati Samanta (Ghosh)

      Heard on                   :


Judgement on:                    27th November, 2013.



Biswanath Somadder, J. :-

Let the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties be taken on record. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application as well as affidavits filed by the parties, it appears that the issue sought to be raised in the instant writ petition is an order of dismissal issued by the respondent no. 3, being, Nadia Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., whereby the petitioner's service has been terminated. 2 The petitioner has primarily alleged violation of the principles of natural justice by the concerned respondent authority during the course of the disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately led to the order of dismissal.

In the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner's allegations have been denied. It has also been asserted, inter alia, that the series of correspondences would amply prove that natural justice was given to the petitioner. It has also been stated categorically that the law does not stipulate that personal hearing should be given to the petitioner or that his lawyer should be heard by the Board of Directors. It has also been stated by the concerned respondent authority that the representation of the petitioner against punishment proposed, followed by a reasoned order of dismissal, meets the obligation of the Board of Directors as stipulated under Rule 48 (f) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules 1987 and the proviso thereto.

Considering the respective contentions of the parties, it is clear that the petitioner has a statutory right to prefer an appeal against his order of dismissal before the concerned appellate authority. The petitioner, however, has chosen to file the writ petition, which, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, was an unnecessary exercise for the purpose of invocation of the high prerogative Constitutional Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the statutory appellate authority, in the event he is still aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal.

(Biswanath Somadder, J.) sb.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)