Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mr. Om Narayan Rai ... For The vs T.R.Challappan Reported In Air 1975 Sc. ... on 30 June, 2009
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
1
30.6. 2009
W.P.S.T. 387 of 2009
Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh,
Mr. Om Narayan Rai ... For the petitioner.
Miss. Suchitra Saha,
Mrs. Dipanwita Ghosh Chowdhury ... For the
State respondent.
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Assailing the judgement and order dated 13th March, 2009 passed by the West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal passed in case No. O.A. 25 of 2007, this writ application has been filed.
The impugned order reads such.
" 13/03/09
For the applicant : Mr. G.P.Thakur,
Mr. G.P.Banerjee,
Ld. Advs.
For the respondents : Ms.M. Dhar
Chowdhury,
Ld.Adv.
This petition has been filed by Shri Ram Krishna Mondal challenging the order of
Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services W.B. whereby the said Director
refused to revoke the suspension order served on the petitioner.
A brief background is required for appreciation of the grievance of the present
petitioner. The present petitioner was kept under suspension in the year 1990 as soon as a
specific criminal case was started against him U/S 498A/304B of the IPC as he was in
judicial custody in connection with a case for more than 48 hours.
The criminal case, initiated against the
2
petitioner, finally ended in an order of conviction recorded against the petitioner by the Ld.
Sessions Judge, Suri in the year 1999. After pronouncement of the verdict, the petitioner
was again taken to judicial custody to serve out the sentence.
The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an application U/S 389 of CRPC both for bail
and for suspension of his sentence and he moved the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble
High Court on two occasions rejected his bail prayer, but ultimately for not preparing paper
book in time, the petitioner was granted bail and the suspension of sentence was also
recorded.
Being encouraged with his bail order during pendency of the criminal trial, the
petitioner moved this Tribunal earlier for revocation of his suspension order and at that
time, the petitioner's Ld. Adv. relied on several judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme court to
impress upon the Tribunal to get a favourable order. we find from copy of the order of the
Tribunal that ultimately Tribunal did not accept the submission of the petitioner, but
directed the authority to reconsider whether after getting bail the suspension order can be
revoked or not.
The authority rightly held in the impugned order that since the petitioner has been
convicted by the Criminal Court, his suspension order cannot be revoked and petitioner is
aggrieved with this order.
On hearing, the Ld. Adv. of both the sides, we like to record that the authority
probably did not take into consideration rule 11 of the C.C.A rule 1971, which indicates
that without following the procedure of departmental enquiry, a public servant can be
outright dismissed from service if he is convicted under criminal charge. In this case, when
a public servant has been convicted by a Criminal Court U/S 498A/304B, it is the duty of
the controlling officer to take into consideration rule 11 of the C.C.A rule 1971 and to
record appropriate order. We direct upon the authority to pass appropriate order. The
application accordingly, stands disposed of.
Ms. Dhar Chowdhury is directed to send a
copy of this order to the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, W.B.
immediately for his information and compliance.
Plain copy to both the sides.
Sd/- A.K.Patnaik Sd/: A.K.Basu
Member(A) Member(J)"
The original application was filed by the present writ petitioner assailing the decision dated
30th November, 2006 passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, West
Bengal rejecting the prayer to resume duty on withdrawing or recalling the order of suspension on
3
the reasoning that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, 2nd Court, Birbhum, Suri in Sessions case No. 127 of 1991, subsequently registered as
Sessions Trial No. 4 June, 1996, when was challenged in appeal before the High Court, being
Criminal Appeal No. C.R.A. 67 of 1999, in the application under Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as filed therein, by the order dated 26th November, 1999, Sujit Barman Roy, J. (
as His Lordship then was ) suspended the order imposed by the trial Court regarding the sentence
and granted bail. The order of appeal Court passed in the application under Section 389(1) Cr. P.C.
reads such.
" Mr. A.K.Adhya : For the Appellant.
Mr. S. Mallick : For the State.
Re: Application U/s. 389(1) Cr.P.C.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides.
By this application appellant Ram Krishna Mondal has prayed for suspension of the
sentence imposed upon him by judgement dated 23.2.99 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions
Judge, 2nd Court, Birbhum, Suri in Sessions Case No. 127/91. It is seen from the record
that earlier while rejecting prayer of the appellant for bail, this Court directed the office to
prepare Paper Book within three months. Office could not prepare the Paper Book within
three months. Again another three months' time was given to the office to prepare the
Paper Book. Even then Paper Book could not be prepared. Sentence is of seven years R.I.
and some amount of fine. Appellant is already in custody for about nine months since the
impugned judgement was passed.
Under the circumstances, I allow the prayer and suspend the sentences imposed upon
the appellant by the impugned judgement during pendency of this appeal and further direct
that the appellant shall be released on bail of Rs.6,000/- with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the Ld.S.D.J.M., Suri.
The 26th November,1999. S.Barman Roy"
After this order was passed, the writ petitioner approached the respondent authorities seeking
his joining in the post in question as Veterinary Field Assistant on the reasoning that the sentence
4
imposed by the Criminal Court in the Sessions trial No.4 June, 1996 was stayed but it was not
considered. The writ petitioner moved the Tribunal in O.A. No.965 of 2006 and by the order dated
25th July, 2006 the learned Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider
the issue as to whether suspension order could be reviewed or not within certain period as specified
therein. As per said direction, a decision was taken on 30th November, 2006 by the concerned
authority. The decision reads such.
" Government of West Bengal
Directorate of Animal Resources & Animal
Health,
Writers' Buildings, Kolkata-700 001.
ORDER
Whereas Shri Ramkrishna Mondal, Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension), son of Shri Amulla Ratan Mondal, Vill. & Post. Karidhya, P.S. Suri, Dist. Birbhum was placed under suspension vide this office no.269/1(5)/DVS/Con/1E-5/2134 dated 30.06.1990 with retrospective effect from 04.06.90 in connection with a case under section 498 A & 304 B of Indian Penal Code and was detained police custody beyond 48 hours.
And Whereas Shri Ramkrishna Mondal, Livestock Development Assistant( now under suspension), was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court.
And Whereas Shri Ramkrishna Mondal, Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) filed one application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1965 of 2006 claiming inter alia for a direction upon the Respondents to withdraw the suspension order and after withdrawing the same to allow him to join his service immediately along with all other consequential benefits.
And Whereas Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal on 25.07.06 after hearing the petitioner was pleased to direct the concerned authority to make a review of the suspension order in accordance with law. Hon'ble Tribunal was further pleased to direct to see as to whether there was any further need for keeping the 5 petitioner under suspension, if not in such event all admissible benefits be granted to the petitioner including relief of his reinstatement.
And Whereas the entire matter was reviewed very carefully all files/records/documents laying at this end in connection with the suspension of Sri Ramkrishna Mondal, Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) specially thje Application made before the Hon'ble Tribunal was carefully considered.
And Whereas after considering all papers as it appeared that Sri Ramkrishna Mondal, Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) was accused in a criminal case which started against him under section 498 A & 304 B of the Indian Penal Code before Additional Session Judge second court Birbhum, Suri. The Learned Additional Session Judge, Birbhum, Suri in Session Case No.127, after considering all witness etc. was pleased to deliver his judgement of 23.02.1999 by sentencing Sri Ramkrishna Mondal applicant herein to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under section 304 B of Indian Penal Code and he had also been further sentenced to suffer 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fines of 500 rupees in the fault of payment of fines further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under section 498 A of Indian Penal Code.
And Whereas during his rigorous imprisonment Sri Ramkrishna Mondal, Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) preferred an appeal before Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in C.R.A. No.67 of 99 along with this he also filed an application for bail under section 389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code ion R.R.N. No.3905 of 1999 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Barman Roy. Hon'ble Mr. Justice on 26.11.99 was pleased to order that the applicant be released on bail of Rs.5000 with one surety amount to the satisfaction of learned SDJM Suri and on the strength of that order learned SDJM Suri on 2.12.1999 granted Sri Mondal's bail.
And Whereas this is to see that Sri Ramkrishna Mondal, Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) was placed under suspension on the strength of West Bengal Services (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules 1971. Neither Hon'ble Tribunal nor Hon'ble High Court Calcutta declared West Bengal Services (Classification Control Appeal) Rules, 1971 as ultra vires at any time.
And 6 Whereas the same was not declared ultra vires by any court of judicature so mere getting bail by Appropriate Court of Law does not confer any indivisible right to Sri Ramkrishna Mondal Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) to be reinstated in service for being released on bail.
And Whereas to crown over all in this instant matter Sri Ramkrishna Mondal was once convicted by one court of law in one criminal proceeding for which he was sentenced for more than 7 years RI though Sri Ramkrishna Mondal Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) was released on bail by High Court and his Criminal Revisional Appeal is yet pending (as report by Ramkrishna Mondal Livestock Development (now under suspension). So it cannot be concluded that Sri Ramkrishna Mondal Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) was set free from the criminal charges level against him, and not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. As such considering all I found it is necessary to keep Ramkrishna Mondal Livestock Development Assistant (now under suspension) till the criminal revisional appeal is settled.
(sd/- Dr. D.K.Das) Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, West Bengal.
Memo No.1746(6) AR Dated 30.11.06"
The said decision was assailed in the original application, being O.A. No.25 of 2007. The learned Tribunal disposed of the original application by rejecting his prayer to revoke the suspension order with a direction upon the respondent authority to consider initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceeding under Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 which is impugned order in writ application. The impugned order is already set out.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the said impugned order directing to proceed under Rule 11 of the said Rules, 1971, as aforesaid, as well as the order whereby suspension order was not interfered with.
7
This writ application has been opposed by the respondent, by contending, inter alia, that under Rule 11 of the said Rules, 1971, the respondent authorities are entitled to proceed as the conviction order has not been stayed. It has been further submitted that a show cause notice has been issued in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Tribunal on three fold grounds:
(i) when before the Tribunal there was no averment made by the present writ petitioner in the original application touching the applicability of Rule 11 of the said (Classification Control Appeal) Rules, 1971, whether the learned Tribunal was justified to observe as made on that score and to pass a direction to the authority concerned to decide the issue in the angle of said provision.
(ii) That since the writ petitioner assailing the order of the learned Sessions Judge passed in the Sessions trial moved an appeal and thereby in his application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. by the order dated 26th November, 1999, High Court in connection with C.R.A. 67 of 1999, stayed the suspension of sentence imposed on 23rd February,1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum in the said sessions trial and granted bail, there is no scope to proceed under the said Rule 11 of the (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1971 on the reasoning that once the appeal was filed, the matter should be considered as sub judice and no effect to the decision impugned under appeal could be given.
(iii) That since there is a stay of sentence till the finality of the appeal, the respondent cannot proceed departmentally to pass an order of dismissal by way of Rule 11 as aforesaid.8
In support of the contention that the learned Tribunal was wrong to pass a direction directing the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate proceeding under Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification Control Appeal) Rules, 1971, reliance has been placed to the judgement passed in the case The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and another - Vs.- T.R.Challappan reported in AIR 1975 SC. 2216. It is contended that the provision of the said Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 is nothing but a provision on the basis of the constitutional provision of Article 311(2)(A) whereby and whereunder for conviction of a Government employee in connection with criminal trial, the authorities concerned may proceed to dismiss without even following full-fledged departmental proceeding in terms of the statutory rule as applicable and such power being the discretionary power which should be exercised by the authorities concerned applying their mind, but the Tribunal should not have passed direction in the matter as already directed.
It is true that under Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 there is a provision, being a special provision whereby in certain cases whereby an employee's service could be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on the criminal charge. Rule 11 of the said Rules, 1971 reads such.
" 11. Special provision in certain cases:- (1) Nothing in Rule 10 shall apply in a case where-
(i) A person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) The authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry; or
(iii) The Governor is satisfied that in the Interest of security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry.9
(2) If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give any opportunity of showing cause in clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) the decision therein of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final."
Rule 11 is an enabling provision by exempting the lengthy procedure of the Rule 10 which provides the procedure for imposing penalties stipulated thereto under Rule 8 by following the appropriate departmental proceeding on giving an opportunity of hearing in such proceeding. Penalty could be imposed following the procedure laid down in Rule 10. Under Rule 11, dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank should be done on the ground of conduct which has led to the conviction on a criminal charge which is a special procedure. There is no doubt about the discretionary power available to the authorities concerned, to exercise it. In the instant case it appears that before the learned Tribunal, challenge was made about refusal to withdraw the order of suspension and thereby to allow resumption in service which was done by the decision dated 30th November, 2006. There was no lis and/or issue in the matter so far as applicability of Rule 11 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1971. Even there was no pleading by the respective parties on that score, as it appears from the pleadings. It is settled legal position that the Court is bound to proceed on the basis of the pleading and cannot travel beyond the pleading save and except in some exceptional cases where the writ Court may consider that any point is required to be adjudicated and to that effect Court may frame that question and may direct the person concerned to answer that issue. Reliance may be placed to the judgement passed in the case Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority -Vs.- S.Vasudeva reported in 2000(2) SCC.439 where it was held that Court should not travel beyond the scope of the writ petition and/or beyond the pleading therein. On the point that the Court may frame a new question and may answer that point by giving an opportunity of hearing is also the view decided by the Apex Court in the case V.K.Majotra -Vs.- 10 Union of India reported in 2003(8) SCC. 40 whereby the Court held that additional point not pleaded, could be raised by the writ Court, subject to providing of an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, but such power should be exercised in rarest of rare cases and when fact and circumstances require such adjudication. Even in the case Som Mittal -Vs.- Government of Karnataka reported in 2008(3) SCC.574, a judgement of three Judges' Bench, the Court held that when there is necessity to decide or comment upon the issue not raised by the party, the Court may do so after inviting the parties so that they may put forward the views on such issue. In the instant case it appears that before the learned Tribunal there was no whisper about exercise of power under Rule 11 of the said Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1971 by the respondents. The writ petitioner did not approach the Tribunal for a relief on that score, but prayed for recalling of the suspension order and for resumption in service.
As such, we are of the view that as there was no pleading and specific point raised on the issue about applicability of Rule 11 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1971, the learned Tribunal went wrong by passing a mandatory order directing the respondent concerned to pass appropriate order in terms of Rule 11 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1971. So far that portion of the order is concerned, it is not legally sustainable. Hence that portion of order is set aside and quashed.
However, despite quashing of such, we are of the view that since the point has been agitated before us by the parties, on hearing them, we may proceed to decide whether in the instant case there is any embargo of applicability of Rule 11 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1971 to pass a decision for dismissal or removal from service on the basis of the conviction as passed by the competent criminal Court in the Sessions trial which is now pending in appeal. To adjudicate that issue, it cannot be considered as new point because the writ petitioner has agitated 11 the matter by way of argument that Rule 11 is not applicable on that score, as the criminal appeal is pending in before the High Court where suspension order has been stayed and the scope of applicability of Rule 11 is limited and the authority cannot proceed with that. The issue remains for adjudication that when an order has been passed by the High Court in criminal appeal, whether there is any embargo to proceed under Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, hereinafter for brevity, referred to as Classification, Control and Appeal Rules.
The point Nos.(ii) and (iii) as raised are taken up for analogous decision. On a bare reading of the application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order passed by the High Court in C.R.M.3905 of 1999 filed in connection with C.R.A.67 of 1999, it appears that the writ petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 4 June,1996 for an offence under Section 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code suffered sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C., sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with the direction that both the sentences to run concurrently. He got no order of stay of conviction, but the sentence only was stayed by granting bail. Since the sentence was suspended in the criminal appeal and conviction was not suspended or kept in abeyance, the order of conviction remains in force with full effect.
When the order of conviction remains in force, whether the departmental proceeding applying the service rule for dismissing an employee on the ground of conviction could be availed of, has been directly considered by the Apex Court in the case Union of India -Vs.- Ramesh Kumar reported in 1997(7) SCC.514, a judgement of three Judges' Bench, wherein similar to this case, on 12 an application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., only sentence was stayed and bail granted, but conviction was not stayed and as the Court held that the conviction would continue till the same was set aside and quashed in appeal, it was decided that dismissal action, namely, dismissal of an employee from Government service based on such conviction not stayed by the criminal Court, was justified. The order of the Tribunal which quashed the dismissal order from service passed by the employer on applying the statutory provision of Rule 9 of Central Services Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was set aside and quashed; the same view reiterated by the Apex Court in the case Union of India -Vs.- V.K.Bhaskar reported in 1997(11) SCC.383, a judgement of two Judges Bench, wherein dismissal from service on the ground of conviction on criminal charge suffer during pendency of the appeal against such conviction wherein there was no stay of conviction, was held as proper and legal with a rider that in the event of acquittal from the appeal Court, the employee would be at liberty to seek review of the dismissal order. In the case V.K.Bhaskar (Supra) the Court followed the decision passed in the case Deputy Director of Collegiate Education Administration, Madras -Vs.- S.Nayoor Meera reported in 1995(3) SCC.377. It was also a case of applicability of relevant provision of Central Services Rules (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1965. The Apex Court considered the said case with reference to a case under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act which provides disqualification to contest the election of convicted person in a criminal case. In that case the candidate did not disclose that he was convicted. He was elected in an election which was challenged subsequently. The issue was raised before the Apex Court in the case A.M.Ramanna -Vs.- Land Tribunal Mandya Taluk reported in 2007(7) SCC.330, a judgement of three Judges Bench, wherein the point urged that the candidate's election was cancelled, though he got the order of suspension of sentence from the criminal court and was released on bail. Rejecting such contention, the Court held that 13 since the conviction was not stayed, the order of suspension of sentence and grant of bail would not operate as stay of the conviction and as such disqualification clause in the Representation of the People Act would be applicable. In deciding this case, the Apex Court relied upon the earlier judgements passed in the case reported in 2005(1) SCC 794; Sarat Chandra Rabha -Vs.- Khagendranath Nath reported in AIR 1961 SC.334; Rabikant S Patil -Vs.- Sarvabhouma S. Bagali reported in 2007(1) SCC.673; Navjot Singh Sidhu -Vs.- State of Punjab reported in 2007(2) SCC.574 and Rama Narang -Vs.- Ramesh Narang reported in 1995(2) SCC.513.
Having regard to those settled legal position, we are of the view that said Rule 11, being paramateria provision with reference to provision of Rule 9 of Central Services Rule ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the point raised by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner that no order of dismissal or removal from service could be passed under Rule 11 of said Rules, 1971 has no merit.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred the judgements reported in 55 CWN.509( Satyanarayan Prosad Gooptu -Vs.- Dinana Engineering Co.; AIR.2004 S.C.1596 (U.O.I. -Vs.- West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.); AIR 2001 SC.1096 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai -Vs.- Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal and another) and AIR 1995 SC.2216 (The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and another -Vs.- T.R.Chauappan) to contend that once the appeal is preferred, the impugned judgement under appeal becomes a sub-judice matter and as such effect of such should not be given. On a bare perusal of those judgements, we are of the view that those are not applicable in the instant case due to basic difference to pass order of stay. In civil cases, when the judgement and decree is under appeal, stay may be granted by the appeal Court ordering stay of the decree under appeal which debar execution of decree, but in the criminal appeal though the conviction and sentence are under challenge, but conviction is not stayed automatically when order 14 of sentence is stayed, unless and until specific plea is made concerning the contingencies that the person would suffer any prejudice pointing out necessity of stay of conviction on the basis of the specific ground under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and same is allowed, as observed in the case Rama Narang (supra). In that view of the matter, the judgements as referred to relying upon the judgement of the civil Court is not applicable. Furthermore, the same view was observed by the Apex Court in the case Lal Sai Kunte (Supra) and Ramesh Kumar (Supra) and V.K.Bhaskar (Supra).
Considering those, the point as raised by the writ petitioner is answered negatively by holding, inter alia, that the concerned authority has power to proceed in terms of Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. In view of the aforesaid findings and observation, the point no.(iii) is answered negatively.
Considering the aforesaid findings and observation, we are of the view that the order of the learned Tribunal so far as refusal to set aside and quash the decision of the authority concerned not to recall the suspension order was justified and we are not interfering with the said order. So far as second part of the order of the Tribunal is concerned whereby the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to proceed in terms of Rule 11 of the said Rules, 1971, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal had gone beyond the pleading and did not even frame any issue on that point and as such, mandatory direction as passed was not sustainable.
In the writ application, since that point has been canvassed and urged and argued, we have decided the point by holding, inter alia, that the State respondents are entitled to proceed under Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 due to the order of conviction as passed by the criminal Court in the Sessions Trial, which as already 15 discussed, as yet, has not been stayed by the criminal Court on considering the relevant judgements in that field as observed above, namely, Ramesh Kumar (Supra) and V.K.Bhaskar (Supra).
Hence, the writ application stands dismissed so far as assailing the point attacking the order whereby Tribunal refused to allow joining and the writ application stands partly allowed quashing the direction to proceed under Rule 11 passed by the Tribunal, but in this writ as the point has been canvassed, direction is passed to this effect that the respondent authorities have right to proceed under Rule 11 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Pratap Kumar Ray,J.) I agree.
(Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.)