Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Manotosh Sutradhar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 March, 2022
08 04.03.2022 WPST 105 of 2021
with
Ct-08 I.A No. CAN 1 of 2022
Dr. Manotosh Sutradhar
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
ar
Mr. Soumya Majumder
Mr. Arindam Ghosh
Ms. Rupoma Bhattacharjee
... For the Writ Petitioner
Mrs. Seba Ray
Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta
... For the Respondent no. 6
Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay Mr. Rammohan Pal ... For the State Re: CAN 1 of 2022 This application has been filed by the writ petitioner for granting an interim order. The petitioner complains that impugned decision of the State Administrative Tribunal has virtually left the writ petitioner remediless. Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submits that the SAT has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not interfering with the order of ICC. However, the fact remains that the order of the ICC, recommending disciplinary proceeding, was not the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and it appears that the appellate authority, before whom a representation was made by the writ petitioner against the recommendation of ICC, was turned down, that resulted in filing an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal.
2The Tribunal on consideration of the relevant provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with the relevant rules was of the view that there is no scope to prefer any appeal before the higher authority, as per Section 18 of the said Act.
Curiously enough, the writ petitioner did not challenge the recommendation of the ICC on an understanding that State Administrative Tribunal is not the appropriate authority to consider any challenge to such recommendation as an appellate authority. Even nothing prevented the writ petitioner after 25th November, 2021 to approach before the Tribunal to challenge the ICC recommendation instead of wasting time by filing a writ petition in this court challenging the decision of the Tribunal. A prudent man suffering the consequence of ICC recommendation would have immediately accepted the said order or could be amended the original application with a prayer also for setting aside the recommendation of the ICC. The regular bench of this court on 11th January, 2022 declined to pass any interim order, although it has not been specifically stated in the said order.
We make this observation that charge sheet was filed on 9th July, 2021 and the writ petitioner was aware that the dyes cast bolt impeding. However, the coordinate bench did not grant any stay of the disciplinary proceeding neither the disciplinary proceeding has commenced during the pendency of the writ petition, this bench (not being the regular bench) cannot revisit the issue, once the interim order deemed to have been rejected by the regular 3 bench.
This order shall not prevent the writ petitioner to take appropriate steps against the recommendation of the ICC in accordance with law.
We are also of the view that the recommendation of the ICC is only a piece of evidence and is not conclusive.
In the event, the disciplinary authorities desire to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition it shall be strictly without prejudice to the right and contentions of the writ petitioner.
On such consideration, the application being CAN 1 of 2022 stands disposed of without any order as to costs.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.) 4