Dismissed

Visva-Bharati v. Shrabanti Ganguly and Ors.

Calcutta HC3 Feb 2023MAT/1687/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned a 35-day delay in filing an appeal against an order dismissing a writ petition challenging a single bench order in an enquiry. The single bench found no evidence implicating the petitioner in fake bills. The appellant Court found no reason to intervene but modified litigation costs to Rs.10,000.

What did the court decide?

Litigation cost modified to Rs.10,000 payable by the appellant to the respondent.

Visva-Bharati Vs Shrabanti Ganguly and Ors. — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

03.02.23 05 Ct. No.11 Sws.M

¶2

MAT 1687 of 2022 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2022 CAN 2 of 2022

¶3

Visva-Bharati

¶4

vs. Shrabanti Ganguly & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Victor Chatterjee

¶6

….for the Appellant

¶7

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya

¶8

….for the respondent/ writ petitioner

¶9

Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause-title.

¶10

In Re: CAN 1 of 2022

¶11

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is a delay of 35 days in filing this appeal.

¶12

The delay has been sought to be explained by filing CAN 1 of 2022.

¶13

Prayer is made on the basis of the cause shown in CAN 1 of 2022 ( supra ) for condonation of such delay.

¶14

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel, appears for the respondent/the writ petitioner.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Considered the cause shown.

¶17

¶18

The cause shown is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the delay stands condoned.

¶19

The appeal be now treated to be formally on board along with its connected stay application.

¶20

CAN 1 of 2022 stands thus disposed of.

¶21

In Re: MAT 1687 of 2022 with CAN 2 of 2022

¶22

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appears for the appellant/Visva-Bharati University (for short the University).

¶23

The respondent/the writ petitioner is represented by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel.

¶24

Under challenge is the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 8^th July, 2022 passed in the writ petition being WPA 6331 of 2020. By the said order impugned the Hon’ble Single Bench noticed that the Enquiry Proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner on the basis of a show-cause notice issued by the Registrar (Acting) of the said University. There is no iota of evidence regarding the involvement of the writ petitioner in the preparation and disbursement of alleged fake bills in the name of Bapi Das.

¶25

This Court has been taken through the contents of the Enquiry Proceedings by learned Counsel for the appellant. From the contents of the Enquiry

¶26

¶27

Proceedings it does transpire that the conclusion drawn by the Hon’ble Single Bench with regard to the lack of evidence on the involvement of the writ petitioner in the alleged preparation of fake bills and disbursement of amount is well defined. By way of illustration this Court refers to the following Paragraph of the Enquiry Report, which reads as follows:

¶28

“ Sri Ganesh Ghosh, Sri Subir Goswami and Sri Panchanan Khan are responsible for the preparation of fake bills in the name of Bapi Das, signing over the bills as Bapi Das, getting approved by the Principal, submission of the bills, receiving payments and its disbursement.” Although, Mr. Chatterjee submits that there are several other persons working in Bhasha Bhavana who have been alleged to be involved in the aforementioned illegal activity, this Court must notice from the contents of the report of the Enquiry Committee that nowhere does the name of the writ petitioner appears in the act of commission and or omission of the alleged fake preparation of bills and disbursement of amount.

¶29

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner supports the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench.

¶30

¶31

Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court find no reason to intervene in the order passed.

¶32

However, since the Hon’ble Single Bench has already granted back wages to the petitioner, litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- stands modified to the extent that the University shall pay Rs.10,000/-to the respondent/writ petitioner as litigation costs.

¶33

All parties to act on a server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the Court.

¶34

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J)

Visva-Bharati v. Shrabanti Ganguly and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visva-Bharati v. Shrabanti Ganguly and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpajit Chakraborty Vs Union of India & Ors.

Julficar Sardar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Raj Narayan Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sujan Sadhukhan Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bapi Pramanik Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Gobardhan Mohankudu and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.