DEBASISH BANERJEE Vs. THE LD. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's estranged wife is not represented despite due notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner is getting subsistence allowance since March, 2013, an order passed in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has been taken into account by the employer to deduct a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from the paltry monthly allowance of about Rs. 24,000/- received by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner refers to 'the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I. Rule 71(4) in Chapter 9 of the said Rules pertaining to dismissal, removal and suspension of Government employees deals with when any recovery may be made from the subsistence allowance. Such provision mandates that certain amounts may be recovered from the subsistence allowance paid to a Government employee "with his written consent and to the extent agreed upon...." The four clauses of sub-rule (4) relate to subscription to a provident fund; premium due on postal life insurance; dues of any co-operative society; and "amount due on the Court attachment."

(3.) The petitioner is a judicial officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been instituted for the perceived acts of insubordination in the petitioner, inter alia, not recording statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, however, claims that since the petitioner was also discharging the duties of a Civil Judge at the relevant point of time, the additional power conferred on the petitioner as a Magistrate ought to have been under section 11(3) of the Code and not under section 11(2) of the Code as had been erroneously provided." The disciplinary proceedings are of no relevance in the present context, except that it is a matter of concern and deep anguish that the petitioner remains suspended for nearly two years without the disciplinary proceedings being concluded within such time. The parties report that the proceedings are still at the inquiry stage and the petitioner claims that on the last date that the matter was fixed before the inquiry officer on February 27, 2015, the petitioner attended this Court only to discover that the inquiry officer was out of station on work.