Chandi Charan Karan @ Chandi Karan Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22^nd September, 2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. By the reason of the impugned judgment the Single Bench declined the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant for release of full pension and other terminal benefits.

¶10

The admitted facts before this Court are that the writ petitioner/appellant was serving as an Assistant Teacher at Nachipur Primary School. He was subsequently promoted as head teacher on 14^th July, 2025. During his tenure as head teacher, the writ petitioner/appellant was implicated as an accused in Lalgarh Police Station Case No. 04 of 2011 dated 7^th January, 2011 under Sections 148/149/326/307/302 of the IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. He was arrested and remained in custody for a considerable period. In terms of the applicable Rules,

¶11

2

¶12

he was placed on suspension effect from 8^th May, 2024. During the period of suspension, he was granted 50% of his salary as subsistence allowance, which was later increased to 70% of his salary.

¶13

During the pendency of the criminal proceedings and suspension from service the writ petitioner/appellant reached the age of superannuation on 28^th February, 2022. He was still in custody at the relevant point of time. He was enlarged on bail later. The writ petitioner/appellant was being paid interim allowance in terms of Rule 19(3) of the West Bengal Primary Education Employees’ (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 2009.

¶14

Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant claimed that the criminal proceedings against him arose out of acts and omissions outside the scope of employment. The school and the State authorities, therefore, did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him. He should, therefore, be granted full pension and all retirement benefits irrespective of the result of the criminal proceedings.

¶15

It is alternatively argued by Mr. Maitra, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant that even if the criminal proceedings will eventually result in a conviction of the writ petitioner/appellant the acts for which he would be convicted would still arise out of

¶16

3

¶17

the scope of employment. There are no allegations on any misconduct against the petitioner in course of employment. He should therefore not be penalized by the State. The benefits of rendering seamless service to the State as an Assistant Teacher and Head Teacher cannot be denied to the writ petitioner/appellant.

¶18

In support of his contention, Mr. Maitra relied upon a decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of K.M.C. and Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Das reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4036 and a decision of another coordinate Bench in the case of Amit Bisas Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) LLN 852 and the case of Surajit Roy Vs. Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta and Ors. in WP No.834 of 2013 dated 22^nd July, 2014 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.

¶19

It is also argued by Mr. Maitra that even the subsistence allowance and interim allowance post superannuation was not paid in terms of the West Bengal Primary Education Employees’ (Death-cumRetirement Benefit) Rules, 2009.

¶20

Opposing the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant, learned counsel for the State Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Government Pleader places reliance on two decisions namely Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Regional Manager Punjab National Bank reported in (2010) 8 SCC 573 paragraph 23 onwards and a decision of coordinate dated 10^th June,

¶21

4

¶22

2025 in WPST 8 of 2025 (Krishnadas Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal).

¶23

This Court has carefully heard the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant as well as the State.

¶24

It is now well-settled that there should be a comity and/or continuity of views between Benches particularly Division Benches of the High Court. Apart from the said principle, this Court is of the view that the decision in Krishnadas Chatterjee (supra) rendered by a coordinate Bench is in harmony with the views of this Court.

¶25

Indeed it is true that the writ petitioner/appellant superannuated from service without any blemish in his service career. The suspension of the petitioner is an ipso facto and/or automatic consequence of being detained in custody for more than 48 hours albeit in connection with criminal case that arose in its entirety outside the scope of the employment. There is no allegation of misconduct or moral turpitude against the writ petitioner/appellant made by the employer in any form till date.

¶26

The entitlement of a claim for full pension would essentially depend upon the gravity of the charges labeled against the employee. While it is true that in respect of grave charges as in the instant case against

¶27

5

¶28

the writ petitioner/appellant, he would be deemed to be unfit to remain free in society, his liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would stand curtailed upon his conviction and sentencing. It is, therefore, appropriate to hold that in the event of grave charges even arising outside the scope of the employment, a person unfit to remain free in the society could ipso facto also become unfit to hold any public employment. However, a different scenario may emerge in respect of an employee convicted of minor offences.

¶29

A debatable argument could be advanced by a person accused or convicted of minor offences essentially outside the scope of employment. The entitlement of an employee under the State would also depend on the nature of charges in criminal proceedings outside the scope of employment.

¶30

In the event of misconduct committed in course of employment, the employer would have the option of either initiating the departmental proceedings against such employee or await the result of the criminal trial if the employee has been proceeding against by the State under the applicable criminal law.

¶31

The definition of moral turpitude has been explained sufficiently well in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal (Supra) from paragraph 23 onwards. The said case would, however, not be applicable in the facts of the instant

¶32

6

¶33

case since the charge of criminal breach of trust under which the appellant therein was convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code arose in course of employment.

¶34

In the said case, the employee who was asked to deposit Rs. 5,000/- with a local post office towards the telephone bill of the branch of the bank misappropriated the same.

¶35

The decision of this Court in the case of Krishnadas Chatterjee (Supra) would have application in the facts of the case since the criminal proceedings against the employee concerned arose outside the scope of employment and not in discharge of official duties.

¶36

This Court is in agreement with the views of the Single Bench to the extent of non-application of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Das (Supra) .

¶37

Having regard to the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the petitioner/appellant is entitled to provisional pension and/or compensatory allowance that he is already receiving. He would however, be entitled to gratuity and other allowance including GPF and leave encashment which admittedly has not been paid by the employer till date.

¶38

7

¶39

It is therefore, ordered that the petitioner/appellant shall be paid leave encashment and gratuity which has not been paid till date by the employer with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on and from 28.02.2022 till date of actual payment. The petitioner/appellant would continue to receive the interim pension in terms of the West Bengal Primary Education Employees’ (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 2009.

¶40

It is submitted by Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State-respondents that the difference between the amounts actually payable to the petitioner and the sums paid has been calculated and made over to him. He has placed instructions of the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Jhargram dated 30.01.2026 in this regard.

¶41

Since it is alleged by the petitioner/appellant that he is yet to receive such difference, the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Jhargram shall revisit the sums actually paid to the petitioner/appellant towards interim pension and the sums the petitioner is entitled to as per rules. Let any difference in the entitlement of the petitioner/appellant be made over to him as expeditiously as possible but not later than one month from date. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner/appellant shall be entitled to make a representation to the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Jhargram in this regard.

¶42

8

¶43

Needless to mention that in the event of conviction and criminal proceedings, all entitlement of the petitioner/appellant shall be reviewed by the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Jhargram.

¶44

If the appellant is acquitted in the criminal proceedings, he shall be entitled to the difference of the subsistence allowance paid and full salary and also the difference between the interim pension and full pension.

¶45

The result of the criminal proceedings will determine the entitlement of the petitioner/appellant as well as the State in accordance with law.

¶46

With the aforesaid observations, FMA 1759 of 2025 is disposed of. Consequently connected pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶47

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

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

¶49

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

¶50

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

Chandi Charan Karan @ Chandi Karan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandi Charan Karan @ Chandi Karan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujjwal Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S Kesoram Rayon Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nihar Ranjan Kanjilal and Anr. Vs National Industrial Tribunal Kolkata and Ors.

Illyas Nabi Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Secretary, Faculty of Law, University of Calcutta Vs Punam Sinha & Ors.

Ranajit Gupta & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.