Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Monoranjan Kumar Saha Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Home
Calcutta HC
2024
Monoranjan Kumar Saha Vs Union of India & Ors.Monoranjan Kumar Saha v. Union of India & Ors.

Dismissed¶23

Monoranjan Kumar Saha v. Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta HC25 Jan 2024WPA/14944/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disciplinary-proceeding writ confined to the charge-sheet/show-cause stage; final removal-from-service order dated 25.08.2017 passed mid-pendency and left unchallenged; petition dismissed as infructuous with liberty to challenge the final punishment order; ex parte disposal after repeated petitioner non-appearance despite adjournment and warning; interim relief refused on 29.08.2017 on a prima facie finding of no prejudice. Search terms: infructuous writ petition; challenge to charge sheet only; unchallenged final punishment order; liberty to challenge final order; Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner disciplinary order; WPA 14944 of 2017.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final punishment order dated 25.8.2017; urgent photostat certified copy of the order to be supplied expeditiously if applied for.

Why is it important?

The writ petition became infructuous because it challenged only the show cause notice, and while it was pending the final order dated 25.8.2017 imposing removal from service was passed and was not challenged by the petitioner. ¶21

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final punishment order dated 25.8.2017; urgent photostat certified copy of the order to be supplied expeditiously if applied for.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, which challenged only the charge sheet/show cause notice and the proposed punishment order dated 22.05.2017, became infructuous because the final order dated 25.08.2017 imposing removal from service was passed during its pendency and was not challenged by the petitioner.

Court's answer

The writ petition became infructuous because it challenged only the show cause notice, and while it was pending the final order dated 25.8.2017 imposing removal from service was passed and was not challenged by the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with liberty given to the petitioner to challenge the final punishment order dated 25.8.2017.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPA 14944 of 2017, decided 25.01.2024 (M. V. Muralidaran, J.) - Monoranjan Kumar Saha v. Union of India & Ors.: The writ petition challenged the charge sheet dated 15.07.2016, the second show cause notice of the enquiry officer and the Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner's Order dated 22.05.2017 indicating proposed punishment of removal of service. During its pendency a final order dated 25.08.2017 imposed removal from service; the petitioner received a copy but did not challenge it. An interim order had already been refused on 29.08.2017 on the view that the petitioner was not prejudiced and that the final order had been passed and received. After the petitioner failed to appear on successive hearings (15.12.2023, with an ex parte warning for 18.12.2023, and again on 25.01.2024), the Court heard the respondents ex parte and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, giving the petitioner liberty to challenge the final punishment order dated 25.8.2017.

A

25.01.2024 Item No.17. Court No.26. AB

WPA 14944 of 2017

Monoranjan Kumar Saha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti ….for the Union of India.

When the matter came up for hearing last occasion on 15.12.2023, none appeared for the petitioner whereas Mr. Maity, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents and also on that date, he filed affidavit-in-opposition in the Court, which was taken on record. Therefore, this Court adjourned the matter till 18.12.2023 under the same heading for appearance of the petitioner to make his submission.

This Court also on that date directed that if no one appears on behalf of the petitioner on the next date of hearing, then this Court would likely to proceed further for hearing of this matter ex parte.

The matter has been taken up today. Even today, none appears for the petitioner whereas Mr. Maity, learned Counsel for the respondents is present.

Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that since the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet only in the prayer of the writ petition, the final

2

order dated 25.08.2017 was passed by imposing the punishment of removal of service of the petitioner, which was not challenged in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition, which was filed challenging the show cause notice, has become infructuous. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition as infructuous.

It is admitted fact, when the matter was taken up on 29.08.2017, this Court passed an order, operative portion whereof is as follows:

“After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties I am of the view that this is not a fit case for the grant of an interim order. Prima facie I am of the view that the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the two communications made by the respondents authorities and it appears from the documents produced in Court that the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice contending the proposed punishment on June 3, 2017. Even if the writ petition has been filed on June 1, 2017, it was necessary for the petitioner to bring it on record by way of a supplementary affidavit. But for the respondents producing a copy of the said reply there was no scope for the Court to be informed about it. That apart a final order in this matter has already been passed and the petitioner has also received a copy of the same. As such there is no question of passing an interim order at this stage. However, any step taken shall abide by the result of the writ petition.”

In that order, it was made clear that if the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the charge sheet, this Court has pointed out that the final order dated 25.08.2017 was passed by imposing punishment of removal from service and the said order

3

was received by the petitioner but he has not chosen to challenge the said order dated 25.8.2017.

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the prayer as follows:

“(a) A Writ of or order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents and/or their servant and/or their agent to withdraw/cancel and/or rescind the impugned charge sheet, dated 15.7.2016, second show cause notice dated 16.4.2016 of the enquiry officer and the Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner’s Order dated 22.05.2017 in accordance with law;

(b) A Writ of or order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 15.07.2016, the Second Show cause notice dated 16.04.2017 and the report of the enquiry officer and the order dated 22.5.2017 indicating proposed punishment of removal of service in accordance with law.

(c) A Writ of or order in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce all the records documents before the Hon’ble Court, so that conscionable justice may be rendered in favour of the petitioner.”

Though in the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the show cause notice along with proposed punishment order dated 22.5.2017, the present writ petition was filed on 1.6.2017 and while pending writ petition, the petitioner came to know that the final order dated 25.8.2017 was passed by imposing the punishment of removal from service, was not challenged in this writ petition.

Since the writ petition has been filed challenging only the show cause notice and while the pendency of the writ petition, the final order was passed, then this writ petition becomes infructuous.

4

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous by giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final punishment order dated 25.8.2017. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance with all the necessary formalities.

(M. V. Muralidaran, J.)

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition, which challenged only the charge sheet/show cause notice and the proposed punishment order dated 22.05.2017, became infructuous because the final order dated 25.08.2017 imposing removal from service was passed during its pendency and was not challenged by the petitioner.¶21
The court held
The writ petition became infructuous because it challenged only the show cause notice, and while it was pending the final order dated 25.8.2017 imposing removal from service was passed and was not challenged by the petitioner.ratio¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner's Order dated 22.05.2017 indicating proposed punishment of removal of service, challenged together with the charge sheet dated 15.07.2016, the second show cause notice of the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer's report¶18
Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner · 22.05.2017
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet dated 15.07.2016 issued and challenged in the writ petition.¶17
Prior proceeding
Second show cause notice of the enquiry officer; its date is printed inconsistently in the prayers as 16.4.2016 (prayer (a)) and 16.04.2017 (prayer (b)); both preserved as printed.¶17
Prior proceeding
Writ petition filed on 1.6.2017 challenging the charge sheet/show cause notice and proposed punishment.¶20
Prior proceeding
Petitioner responded to the show cause notice contending the proposed punishment on June 3, 2017; this was learnt by the Court because the respondents produced the reply in Court.¶12
Prior proceeding
Final order dated 25.08.2017 imposing punishment of removal from service was passed during the pendency of the writ petition; the petitioner received a copy but did not challenge it.¶20
Prior proceeding
On 29.08.2017 this Court declined interim relief: it held prima facie that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the two communications, noted that a final order had already been passed and received by the petitioner, and directed that any step taken shall abide by the result of the writ petition.¶12
Prior proceeding
At the previous hearing on 15.12.2023 none appeared for the petitioner; the respondents' counsel filed affidavit-in-opposition which was taken on record; the matter was adjourned to 18.12.2023 with a direction that continued non-appearance would lead to an ex parte hearing.¶5
Prior proceeding
On 25.01.2024 again none appeared for the petitioner while the respondents' counsel was present; the Court heard the respondents' arguments ex parte.¶7

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Monoranjan Kumar Saha¶3
respondent
Union of India & Ors.¶3
Dilip Kumar Maiti

Coram

AI extract

M. V. Muralidaranauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Calcutta HC
Decided on: 25 Jan 2024 · January
Registered: 1 Jun 2017
Case no.: WPA/14944/2017
CNR: WBCHCA0281192017
Bench: M.v. Muralidaran
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WPA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M.v. Muralidaran

Sukumar Ghosh and Ors. Vs Sanchayita Ghosh and Ors.
11 Jan 2024
Sukumar Ghosh and Ors. Vs Sanchayita Ghosh and Ors.
11 Jan 2024
Kallal Chakraborty Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.
9 Jan 2024
Pranab Barman Vs the Union of India ,Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.
25 Jan 2024
Anita Saha Bhadra Vs Rajib Bhadra
25 Jan 2024
Dilip Biswas Vs Union of India and Ors.
25 Jan 2024

Cite this judgement

Monoranjan Kumar Saha v. Union of India & Ors., WPA/14944/2017 (CAL), decided on 25 January 2024.

The Calcutta High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history9

Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner's Order dated 22.05.2017 indicating proposed punishment of removal of service, challenged together with the charge sheet dated 15.07.2016, the second show cause notice of the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer's reportSr. Divisional Security Commissioner · 22.05.2017
Charge sheet dated 15.07.2016 issued and challenged in the writ petition.
Second show cause notice of the enquiry officer; its date is printed inconsistently in the prayers as 16.4.2016 (prayer (a)) and 16.04.2017 (prayer (b)); both preserved as printed.

View full history

Bench / Coram

M. V. Muralidaran

Parties & counsel