CHAIRMAN CALCUTTA PORT TRUST CALCUTTA Vs. SOMENATH BHATTACHARYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is directed against the following judgment and order rendered by the Trial Court on January 31, 1989. "This Writ application is directed against the order of suspension being Annexure 'A' to the writ application. On a careful scrutiny of the order of suspension, it appears that the petitioners were placed under suspension with retrospective effect which is not permissible under law. That being the position, the order of suspension with retrospective effect cannot be sustained and is set aside Respondents will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders with effect from the date of the order of passing the order of suspension in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be paid the service benefits for the period they have not been paid. This application is thus dispossed of without any order as to costs".

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are that on Decem6er 17, 1988, respondents No. 1 to 7, hereinafter called the Writ petitioners, were arrested in Criminal Case being G.R. case No. 1252 of 1988 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 4 & 5 to 10 of West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act, 1957. They were produced before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, on December 17, 1988. An application for bail presented on the said day was rejected and they were remanded to Jail custody upto January 2, 1989 Feeling aggrieved by the order rejecting the bail application the Writ petitioners preferred an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge, District Midnapore on or about December 23, 1988 and they were discharged on Bail. By an order passed on December 24, 1988 the Writ Petitioners were treated as having been placed under suspension with effect from December 17, 1988, i.e. the day on which they were arrested and detained in custody and they were directed to remain under suspension till further orders. The order of suspension recited that in view of Regulation-6(ii) of Calcutta Port Trust Employees' (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulation, 1987, the Writ Petitioners were deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date of detention.

(3.) The aforesaid order of suspension was challenged by the Writ Petitioners in the Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises. The Writ Petition was allowed by the order above quoted and, hence, the present appeal.