Partly allowed

Arijit Mondal and Ors. v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 Dec 2021MAT/1280/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench of Harish K. Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta set aside an order stopping the salary of appointees pending an enquiry. The court held that acting ex-parte violated principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem.

What did the court decide?

Order stopping salary set aside. Respondents directed to file affidavits-in-opposition within 15 days with opportunity for hearing before enquiry concludes.

Arijit Mondal and Ors. Vs Sandeep Prasad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

05 06.12.21 07 & Ct. No. 04 08

¶2

MAT 1271 of 2021 CAN 1 of 2021

¶3

Ct. No. 04

¶4

Akd

¶5

West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. Vs.

¶6

Sandeep Prasad and others .

¶7

With

¶8

MAT 1274 of 2021 CAN 1 of 2021

¶9

Asto Roy and Ors. Vs.

¶10

Sandeep Prasad and others .

¶11

With

¶12

MAT 1280 of 2021

¶13

Arijit Mondal & Ors.

¶14

Vs.

¶15

Sandeep Prasad and others .

¶16

Mr. Kishore Datta, Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Mr. Supriya Dubey. … for WBCSSC/the appellants in MAT 1271 of 2021.

¶17

Mr. Subir Sanyal, Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Mr. Jasojeet Mukherjee.

¶18

… for the added respondents/appellants in MAT 1274/2021 & MAT 1280/2021

¶19

Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Ld. AG, Mr. Anirban Ray, Mr. Samrat Sen, Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Mr. Jaydip Banerjee, Mr. Ayan Chakraborty, Mr. D. N. Mukherjee. … for the State.

¶20

All the above Mandamus Appeals are taken up together having challenged the order dated 25^th November, 2021, whereby and whereunder directions were passed upon the authorities not only to file the tabular sheet annexing the relevant documents but

¶21

¶22

also to stop the salary of such persons, if their recommendations were made after expiry of the panel.

¶23

In MAT 1271 of 2021 filed by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission the challenge is restricted to the portion of the order by which the prayer for filing affidavits dealing with the allegations made in the writ petition was refused.

¶24

Indubitably, the Single Bench has shown a serious concern on the irregularities and illegalities committed by different authorities, namely School Service Commission and the Board and the persons benefited therefrom should be dealt with sternly and/or with iron hands. The enquiry was directed to be conducted and, therefore, any order prejudicing such appointments if passed would have a larger impact pending such enquiry.

¶25

The enquiry would reveal the truth and if any irregularity or illegality is committed, the same would be dealt with by passing an appropriate directions/orders. The stoppage of salary amidst the enquiry would tantamount to prejudging the issue and such finding would have persuasive impact at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Furthermore a person suffering an order adversely has a right to be heard, as no person would be penalized or condemned without having an opportunity of hearing.

¶26

All the Counsels appearing for the parties unanimously agreed that the order stopping the salary was passed in absence of the appointees as well as in violation of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. Since the persons, who have approached this Court, were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order of stopping the salary was passed, we feel that the order cannot be withstand on the anvil of principles of natural justice.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly, the portion of the order by which the direction was passed to stop the salary is hereby set aside.

¶29

The Single Bench shall pass an appropriate order once enquiry report is submitted after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons.

¶30

Since the enquiry is directed to be concluded within two months from date, we feel that an opportunity must be given to all the contesting respondents to file their responses to the allegations made in the writ petition.

¶31

Accordingly, we direct the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition to all the writ petitions as well as the supplementary affidavit within fifteen days from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶32

With the above observations the appeals are disposed of. Connected applications, if there be any, are also disposed of.

¶33

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶34

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)

¶35

Arijit Mondal and Ors. v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arijit Mondal and Ors. v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

ONGC Limited Vs Square Four Assets Management and Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Smt Rina Mandal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Samad Ali @ Samed Ali & Ors. Vs Sultanpur Alaya Madrasah

Asto Roy and Ors. Vs Sandeep Prasad and Ors.

Asto Roy and Ors. Vs Sandeep Prasad and Ors.

West Bengal Central Mschool Service Commission and Ors. Vs Sandeep Prasad and Ors.