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 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Nirmal Kumar Biswas vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 May, 2015

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, Debangsu Basak

                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                          Appellate Side

Before:

The Hon'ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
               &
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak

                       W.P.S.T. No. 302 of 2011

                         Nirmal Kumar Biswas
                                  Vs.
                      State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Appellant         : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Neogi, Advocate
                            Mr. Gobinda Chowdhury, Advocate
                            Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Advocate
                            Ms. Ananya Neogi, Advocate

For the Respondents       : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate
                            Mr. K. M. Hossain, Advocate


Heard on                  : April 02, 2015


Judgment on               : May 07, 2015


Debangsu Basak, J.:

The writ petitioner herein has challenged the Order dated August 25, 2011 passed in O.A. No. 549 of 2010 and O.A. No. 550 of 2010.

The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal has disposed of two applications being O.A. No. 549 of 2010 and O.A. No. 550 of 2010 by the common judgment and order which has been impugned herein.

We have set aside the order impugned today while deciding the other writ petition being W.P.S.T. No. 305 of 2011 upon quashing the Inquiry Report as well as all other subsequent steps taken in departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner. The aforesaid judgment and order passed in the other writ petition being W.P.S.T. No. 305 of 2011 will also govern the present writ petition since both the writ petitions arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal.

Unlike the writ petitioner in W.P.S.T. No. 305 of 2011, the writ petitioner having been superannuated during the proceedings will enjoy the monetary benefits only which he would have otherwise enjoyed if the disciplinary proceeding was not initiated. The respondent authorities are directed to release and disburse all monetary benefits to the writ petitioner immediately treating the said writ petitioner as an employee who has not been suspended and subsequently dismissed from service.

With the aforesaid directions this writ petition is allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.:

I agree.
(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.)