BECHARAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has approached this Court praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No. 4, being the Administrator, Chatmadangal Samaboy Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, to reinstate him in service as Manager of the concerned cooperative society. It appears from record that the writ petitioner was working as a Manager of the concerned cooperative society till he was suspended from service on the basis of an enquiry report dated 6th August, 2009. Such enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, Birbhum, following which the suspension order was issued by the Secretary of the concerned cooperative society on 22nd September, 2009, for reasons stated therein.

(2.) It Is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that his client had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P. 15850 (W) of 2009. That writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 17th November, 2009, whereby the writ petitioner was directed to pay the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- within 31st January, 2010. It was further observed in the said judgment and order dated 17th November, 2009, that till 31st January, 2010, the concerned cooperative society would take no steps for prosecution of the writ petitioner or for recovery of the amount in a civil forum. If any part of the outstanding amount would remain unpaid on 31st January, 2010, the concerned cooperative society was at liberty to take alt steps against the writ petitioner, as available in law. If full payment was received by the concerned cooperative society within 31st January, 2010, they would withdraw any FIR or criminal complaint.

(3.) According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, consequent upon the passing of the judgment and order dated 17th November, 2009, his client had paid the entire outstanding amount within the time-frame as fixed by the Court, following which the FIR that was earlier lodged against the petitioner was withdrawn. He further submits that, till date, no enquiry has been initiated by the concerned cooperative society against the writ petitioner, but the effect of the order of suspension continues to operate against the writ petitioner, although such order was only for a limited duration. In this context, he has referred to the initial suspension order dated 22nd September, 2009, issued by the Secretary of the concerned cooperative society and the subsequent suspension order dated 30th September, 2010, issued by the Administrator of the concerned cooperative society. He also submits that even though it has been observed by the Administrator in his order dated 30th September, 2010, that an enquiry has already been started against the writ petitioner, the fact remains that there is no record of such enquiry. It is also the specific contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that-as of date-there is no order of suspension in force and yet the writ petitioner has not only been not reinstated in service, he is being made to accept subsistence allowance paid by the concerned cooperative society.