GAUTAM MAITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition prayer inter alia is for issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to set aside the order of suspension dated 17.10.1996 as contained in Annexure P2 as well as for issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary after adjusting the subsistence allowance that has been paid together with interest thereon at the fate of 12% per annum. The short facts which are necessary to be taken into consideration are that while the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Assistant in the Institute of Local Government and Urban Studies, he was arrested on 6.9.1996 in connection with South Bidhannagore Police Station Case No. 129 dated 6.9.1996 under section 381/409/120B IPC. Thereafter, on 19.9.2006, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3304 of 1996. The aforementioned order, granting bail, is Annexure P1. After the aforementioned order, the petitioner sent letters on 20.9.1996 (running page 19) and 14.10.1996 (running page 20) addressed to the respondent No. 4 wherein he requested that he may be allowed to join his duties.

(2.) On 17.10.1996, the Joint Director (respondent No. 5) passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure P2 wherein, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had been taken into custody on 6.9.1996 and also, the fact that He remained therein for more than 48 hours, proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension with effect from the date of his arrest under the provisions of Rule 7(3) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 read with sub-para

(3.) Learned Counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Chhabi Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2006(1) CHN 34, wherein it has been held that an employee cannot be kept under suspension with retrospective effect for an indefinite period of time and that the employer also cannot adopt dilatory tactics to victimize the employee.