W.P. No. 5206 (W) of 2019
In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 05.03.2019;
In re: Bhanja Sarkar
– Versus –
The State of West Bengal Ors.
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay
Mr. Suman Sankar Chatterjee
Mr. Santanu Maji
Ms. Snigdha Saha
For the Petitioner
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya
Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya
For the Council
The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order of suspension
dated 12th October, 2018 passed by the respondent no. 5.
Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that while the
petitioner was working in the post of an assistant teacher in Uttar Habra R.P. School (in short, the
said School) under the District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas (in short, the said
Council), he was falsely implicated in a criminal case on the basis of a complaint lodged by his
wife, being Habra P.S. Case No. 399 of 2018 dated 10.05.2018 under Sections 498A/307/406 of the
Indian Penal Code. In connection with the said criminal case, the petitioner was arrested on 10th
May, 2018 and was subsequently released on bail on 29th May, 2018. Subsequent thereto, the
petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties and an order of suspension was issued on 12th
Mr. Chattopadhyay further submits that the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension for
an indefinite period inasmuch as the same affects his livelihood. Furthermore, the allegation in the
criminal proceeding has no nexus with his service. Stating such facts, the petitioner submitted a
representation on 14th February, 2019 to the respondent no. 5 to revisit the decision of suspension,
to allow him to resume his duties and to disburse all his dues. The said representation has, however,
not been considered.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the Council denies and disputes the
contention of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been lawfully placed under deemed
suspension and he cannot be allowed to resume his duties in view of the gravity of the offences
levelled against him in the criminal proceeding.
It is well settled that an order of suspension cannot continue for an indefinite period. The
impugned order is continuing till date for a period of more than fifteen months, which adversely
affects the petitioner’s livelihood.
In the said conspectus, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s representations dated 21st
December, 2018 and 14th February, 2019 for withdrawal of the order of suspension and for
payment of all arrears need to be considered and decided by the respondent no. 5 through issuance
of an order based on sound reasoning and on materials contemporaneously available on record.
Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent no. 5 to consider the representations dated
21st December, 2018 and 14th February, 2019, annexed at pages 29 and 30 of the writ petition and
to take a decision in the light of the observations made above and to communicate the same to the
The above exercise shall be completed by the said respondent no.5 within a period of four
weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned
advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)