Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Susanta Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 April, 2013
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
43 WP No. 12575 (W) of 2012
18.04.2013
pg.
Susanta Dutta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Suman Snehanabis (Mondal)
... For the petitioner
Mr. S.N. Bhattacharjya
... For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on
record.
After considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant
application, it appears that the petitioner had earlier
approached this Court, initially in the year 2007, by filing a
writ petition, being WP 24124 (W) of 2007, which was
disposed of on 17th December, 2007, with a direction upon
the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer,
Cooch Behar, to consider and dispose of the representation
of the petitioner in accordance with law within a certain
time-frame. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity
of hearing. Pursuant to the said order dated 17th December,
2007, an order was passed by the District Panchayat and
Rural Development Officer, Cooch Behar. From the
2
documents annexed to the instant writ petition, there
appears to be a slight confusion with regard to the date of
the order. At the very top of the order it is written 10th
February, 2009, whereas, the District Panchayat and Rural
Development Officer, Cooch Behar, appears to have signed
the order on 10th February, 2008. The memo containing the
order is also dated 10th February, 2008.
Without entering into the controversy with regard to the
date of the order, upon going through its contents, it
appears that upon considering all facts and circumstances
of the case, the said officer had directed that the service of
the petitioner should be regularised and he be appointed to
the post of Gram Panchayat Karmee in Pundibari Gram
Panchayat under Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti.
Consequential directions were also issued upon the
concerned authorities. While forwarding a copy of the said
order to the Executive Officer and Block Development
Officer, Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti, for the purpose of
appointment of the petitioner, the District Panchayat and
Rural Development Officer, Cooch Behar, had made a
remark to the effect that such appointment was to be made
after observing due formalities like Police Verification
3
Report/Medical Examination, etc.
Alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authority
to give effect to the said order of the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Cooch Behar, the petitioner once again approached this Court - this time filing a writ petition, being WP 19075 (W) of 2009. This writ petition was disposed of on 3rd September, 2010, with a direction upon the Executive Officer, Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti, to take steps for regularisation of the appointment of the petitioner, as per the order of the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Cooch Behar.
The petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition, alleging inaction on the part of the concerned respondent authority, namely, the Executive Officer, Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti, to give effect to the order of the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Cooch Behar, as well as the order of the Court dated 3rd September, 2010.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that although there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner, being Kotwali P.S. Case No. 306 of 2008 dated 4 8th June, 2008, under sections 147/148/149/448/427/ 324/379/506 with added section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been granted anticipatory bail in terms of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 10th July, 2008, in CRM No.6712 of 2008. She further submitted that there is no embargo and/or fetter on the part of the concerned respondent authority to engage the petitioner, since he has never been arrested. In this context, she relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Dinesh Barick Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2010 (2) CHN (Cal) 601. As such, she prays that this Court may issue necessary order, directing the Executive Officer and Block Development Officer, Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti, to engage the writ petitioner, immediately. Considering the facts of the instant case, it is undoubtedly true that the petitioner has been favoured with an order passed by the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Cooch Behar, for being appointed to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmee in Pundibari Gram Panchayat under Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti. However, such appointment is not unconditional. It has been clearly stated by the District Panchayat and Rural 5 Development Officer, Cooch Behar - in the memo containing his order - to the effect that appointment of the petitioner could be given by the Executive Officer and Block Development Officer, Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti, after observing due formalities like Police Verification Report/Medical Examination etc. (emphasis supplied) The judgment relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner has no manner of application at all in the facts of the instant case, since the Division Bench in that case had taken into consideration the fact that the Investigating Officer had submitted a final report before the concerned criminal Court wherein a specific prayer had been made for discharge of the petitioner from the concerned criminal case as no evidence had been found against the petitioner through investigation. In the instant case, no such clean chit has been given by the investigating authority, namely, the police, before the concerned Magistrate. As such, holding back of issuance of an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner by the concerned Executive Officer, Cooch Behar-II Panchayat Samiti, cannot be held to be a bad decision in the eye of law.
For reasons stated above, this Court is unable to grant 6 any relief to the petitioner, as prayed for. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)