LAWS(CAL)-2021-2-37

SUBHRAJIT GUHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On February 03, 2021
Subhrajit Guha Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated May 24, 2019, passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No.296 of 2018.

(2.) The petitioner herein had approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to resume duty as Amin in the Sub-Divisional Office of Land and Land Reforms Officer, Lalbagh in the district of Murshidabad, treating the period of unintentional absence as 'on duty'. The petitioner claimed that he was working as Amin in the aforesaid office. However, due to change of party in power and compelling circumstances the petitioner had to leave the place on 11.5.2011 to save him and his family and he could not attend his duty therefrom. After the circumstances normalised he moved application to the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad on 10.12.2012 for allowing him to resume his duty. No response was received. A request letter was also written on 20.12.2012 followed by letter dated 1.8.2013. On 27.9.2013 the petitioner received copy of the communication from Sub-Divisional Office of Land and Land Reforms Officer, Lalbagh to ADM, Land and Land Reforms Officer, Berhampore, seeking instructions from his superior to take appropriate steps in the matter. Another representation was made by the petitioner on 16.2.2015. However, to that also no response was received. It was under these circumstances, Original Application was filed in the year 2018.

(3.) He further submitted that for more than last nine years neither the petitioner has been placed under suspension nor any enquiry has been initiated against him. Hence, he cannot be removed from service unceremoniously. He should be permitted to join duty subject to whatever disciplinary action can be taken. He further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner while rejecting the O.A. filed by him. It was continuing cause of action, hence, there was no delay in approaching the Tribunal.