Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

(Lakshman Chandra Mondal vs The State Of West on 24 December, 2014

Author: Dipankar Datta

Bench: Dipankar Datta

                                    1



26   24.12.2014
pg
                             W.P.32727 (W) of 2014
                  (Lakshman Chandra Mondal vs. The State of West
                                 Bengal & Ors.)

                  Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee............for the petitioner

                  Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy
                  Ms. Manika Pandit.................for the State


                              None appears for the District Primary School

                  Council, North 24-Parganas (hereafter the 'Council')

                  despite service of copy of the writ petition on December

                  16, 2014, as it appears from the affidavit-of-service filed

                  in Court today. The said affidavit-of-service shall be

                  retained with the records.

                              The petitioner is a primary school teacher,

                  who was detained in custody in excess of 48 hours in

                  connection with an F.I.R. registered under Sections

                  148/149/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code giving rise to

                  Bongaon Police Station F.I.R. No. 559 of 2013 dated July

                  15, 2013. The petitioner has since been released on bail

                  on April 10, 2014.

                               Since the petitioner was in custody in excess

                  of 48 hours, he is deemed to be placed under suspension.

                  It is his grievance that he has not been allowed to resume

                  duty after being released on bail.

                              It appears from page 28 of the writ petition

                  that a representation addressed to the Chairman of the

                  Council is pending, wherein it has been prayed that the

                  petitioner may be allowed to resume duty. I am of the
                      2



considered view that having regard to the nature of

grievance expressed by the petitioner in this writ petition,

no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ

petition pending for decision on affidavits.

             The Chairman of the Council, respondent no.

4 is directed to consider such representation and decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to resume duty bearing in mind the fact that the offence with which he has been accused was not committed in the discharge of his official duty.

Let a decision in terms of this order be given by the respondent no.4 as expeditiously as possible but not later than a month from date of its receipt.

If the petitioner's representation deserves acceptance, follow up steps in accordance with law shall be taken without delay. On the contrary, if he is not found entitled to any relief, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to him.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.

(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)