(1.) In the writ petition, the petitioner an employee of the Diamond Harbour Municipality, has challenged the memo of suspension dated 29th November, 2013 passed under Rule 4(5) of the West Bengal Municipal Employee s (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules 2010, (the Rules for short) by which he was deemed to have been suspended subject to the explanation which was to be offered by him and the memo dated 11th December, 2013 both issued by the Chairperson of the Municipality. The matter was taken upon 14th February, 2014 when direction was issued to file affidavits. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are on record.
(2.) Mr. Ashis Sanyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as under Rule 4(5) of the Rules substantive order is to be passed, show cause notice was issued. The petitioner had replied. However, the impugned memo dated 11th December, 2013, which is a mere repetition of the memo dated 29th November, 2013, does not contain a formal order of suspension. Submission was when authority has been conferred on the Chairperson to pass an order, it has to be exercised in complete compliance of the Rules.
(3.) Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu, learned advocate for the Municipality, relying on the affidavit in opposition submitted since by memo dated 29th November, 2013 explanation was called for and the petitioner had responded by filing reply, which was considered and as criminal case is pending against the petitioner wherein charge sheet has been issued, the order of suspension is just and proper. Moreover as under Rule 11 of the Rules the order of suspension is an appealable order, the writ petition is not maintainable. Since the impugned memo dated 11th December, 2013 issued is legal, considering the gravity of the matter a loose sentence in the last part of the second paragraph of the memo dated 29th November, 2013 may be ignored. Learned advocate for the respondents had relied on judgments which shall be considered appropriately.