Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kasinath Niyogi vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 March, 2012
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1
05/03/2012
ARDR
WP 19130 (W) of 2011
Kasinath Niyogi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee,
Ms. Kakali Dutta,
....for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sandip Kr. Bhattacharjee,
...for the Respondent no.4.
Mr. Uday Shankar Chattopadhyay, ...for the Respondent nos. 5 & 6.
Mr. Subrata Talukdar,
Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, ...for the State.
An Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent no.6 and upon a perusal of page 18 thereof, it appears that what has been done is a mere repetition of what had already been done earlier. It is further evident that the period May, 2007 to June, 2007 has been indicated for purposes of showing overdrawn amount of salary due to "Half Pay Leave" in purported compliance of the order of the D.P.I., which was passed earlier in W.P. no. 8998 (W) of 2011. Annexure P-11 (page 93 of the Writ Petition) shows that the DPI had said that the enjoyment of Earned Leave for 139 (one thirty-nine) days without leave to the credit of the Petitioner would be treated as "Unauthorised Leave". The period that was referred to by the D.P.I. was 30/11/1979 to 30/4/1980.
On 08/12/2011, when this matter was taken up, this Court referred to the Order of the D.P.I. and also duly considered the grievances of the Petitioner to the effect that in 2 spite of the Order of the D.P.I. he has had to run around and write to various authorities. Mr. Uday Shankar Chattopadhyay had submitted on that day that a statement of overdrawn salary had been submitted to the D.P.I. and according to him the total amount withdrawn was Rs.1,24,567.76p.
Considering the submissions, the D.P.I. was directed to take action so that further harassment was not caused to the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 7th of February, 2012, it was pointed out that the Principal had made adjustments of Half Pay Leave of periods falling within the summer holidays as also for a period which was beyond the period mentioned by the D.P.I. and therefore, this Court directed the Principal, Bolpur College to be present in Court explaining as to how such adjustments had been made. The matter was then listed on 9th of February, 2012, when the Principal was present. It was pointed out on behalf of the Petitioner that the Principal had made some calculations but he had adjusted all the Earned Leave. According to the Petitioner, the calculations made by the Principal showed adjustment of 244 (two forty-four) days towards Earned Leave and 138 (one thirty-eight) days towards Half Pay Leave. The Principal asked for two weeks' time to make fresh calculations in terms of the order of the D.P.I. This was recorded in the Order dated 09/2/2012 and the Principal was directed to make fresh calculations and his personal appearance, at that stage, was therefore, dispensed with. The D.P.I., in this turn, was directed to release ad-interim/provisional pension to the Petitioner, which appears to have been complied with, as has been 3 submitted by the learned Senior Government Advocate, on the basis of his instructions received. The said instructions is in the shape of a letter no. 419-C/Pen dated 29th of February, 2012 authorising the Principal of the College to draw and disburse a sum of Rs.30,375/- per month as provisional pension with effect from 01/10/2009 for one year or till the pension was sanctioned, whichever was earlier. A copy of the said letter has been endorsed to the Principal as well as to the Petitioner. The said letter is taken on record.
Today, when the case has been called out, Mr. Uday Shankar Chattopadhyay has filed an Affidavit on behalf of the Principal. According to him and as per this Affidavit, a High Powered Committee was constituted and finally calculations have been made and according to him, page 18 shows that the Petitioner has overdrawn a sum of Rs.1,33,384/-, which has to be adjusted.
This document is now signed by two members of the said High Powered Committee.
Upon a perusal of page 18, this Court is aghast to notice the manner in which the Principal of the College has attempted to take everybody for a ride. In spite of a clear direction of the D.P.I. indicating the total number of days and the period, it appears that the Principal has once again got this document issued showing adjustments in the name of Half Pay Leave even during the Summer Holidays (01/5/2007 - 03/6/2007 and 13/5/2008 - 12/6/2008) . This was exactly what was playing in the minds of everybody on the last date, when this Court had 4 directed the Principal to make fresh calculations. In the garb of making fresh calculations, this Principal has merely repeated and reiterated what was already done earlier.
Apart from this, this Court is further shocked to notice that the Principal has also initiated a criminal action under Sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioner and his wife in the Court of the learned Executive Magistrate at Bolpur being Bolpur P.S. case no. 96 of 2012 dated 21/1/2012. A copy of the summons sent to the Petitioner was produced in Court by Mr. Chatterjee, which is taken on record.
Having considered the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is now satisfied that the Principal has attempted to play ducks and drakes with the Court and has also attempted to act cleverly with the solitary intention of misleading not only a Court of law but also of causing harassment after harassment upon the Petitioner by initiating criminal action. He has not only therefore, attempted to virtually threaten the Petitioner by preventing him from seeking justice before a Court of law (the High Court, in the instant case) but he has gone a step further by getting criminal processes initiated against him and his wife. These are therefore, extremely serious actions that have been initiated by the Principal, which according to this Court, not only amount to preventing administration of justice (because he is not allowing this Court to come to a logical conclusion on account of the fact that he is repeatedly passing the same order, one after other), 5 but by initiating criminal action against the Petitioner, he seems to have cross all bounds. This person therefore, does not deserve sympathy any more. He is guilty of having acted in a manner that amounts to gross violation of the processes of this Court.
Rule do therefore issue upon Dr. Sib Hari Dutta, Principal of the Bolpur College. Rule made returnable on 21st of March, 2012.
Till further Orders are passed by this Court, learned Executive Magistrate, Bolpur is directed not to proceed with Bolpur P.S. case no. 96 of 2012. In the meantime, if the Principal does not disburse the amount indicated by the D.P.I., it will amount to further contempt being committed by the Principal. He is therefore, directed to act strictly in terms of the Order of the D.P.I. The Principal shall also indicate and give the name of the person who has advised him to initiate the criminal action against the Petitioner and his wife and also the name of the person who has advised him to pass the Order, which is referred to above.
Subject to an application for certified copy being made and proof in support thereof being produced, let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the parties. (Rule is drawn in a separate sheet) (Tapen Sen, J.)