30 13.06.2025 ssi Ct. 2 WPA 11990 of 2025 Pratap Mandal -vs- State of W.B. & others. Mr. Musharaf Alam Sk. Mr. Sk. Mustafi Rahaman …for the petitioner Ms. Paramita Pal …for the State Affidavit of service in Court today is taken on record. The petitioner on a contractual basis was appointed as a Civic Volunteer under the relevant District Police Force, which is a disciplined force. The contractual engagement of the petitioner was demobilized on the ground that a criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner by his mother alleging forgery of title document with regard to the homestead property. Sk. Mustafi Rahaman, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequently in the criminal trial, the petitioner was not held guilty. During pendency of the criminal trial, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. The petitioner submits that there was no written demobilization decision served upon the petitioner. On a simple oral instruction, the petitioner was asked not to join the duty any further. Alleging all these illegalities and irregularities on the 2 part of the police force being the contractual employer of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed, claiming resumption of contractual duty of the petitioner. Ms. Paramita Pal, learned advocate for the State, submits a police report dated June 10, 2025 issued under the seal and signature of the Inspector-in-Charge, Harishchandrapur Police Station, Dist- Malda, the same is taken on record. The report speaks for itself. The relevant content from the report is quoted below: “I. That on 18.02.2019, received Court Complaint Lakshmibala Mandal W/o-Lt Jainal Mandal of Khidirpur, P.O.- Doulatnagar, P.S- Harishchandrapur, Dist- Malda against Pratap Mandal S/O Lt. Jaylal Mandal of Vill- Khidirpur, PO- Sultannagar, PS- Harishchandrapur, Dist- Malda to the effect that on 16.12.2018 he took the thumb impression of his mother for registration of their house and landed property in his own name by means of cheating his mother and forged the documents in this act. Over the written complaint started Harishchandrapur PS Case No- 101/19 date- 18.02.2019 U/S- 417/420/468 IPC and endorsed to ASI Natabar Das of Bhaluka O.P. under Harishchandrapur PS, Malda for its investigation. II. That during investigation of the case due to absence of sufficient evidences in c/w the case, the I.O. of the case ASI Natabar Das of Bhaluka O.P. under Harishchandrapur PS, Malda submitted Harishchandrapur PS FRF No-315/2019 Dt- 30.08.2019 u/s 417/420/468 IPC and the accused (instant petitioner) Pratap Mandal S/O Lt. Jaylal Mandal of Vill- Khidirpur, PO- Sultannagar, PS- Harishchandrapur, Dist- Malda was discharged from the case. 3 III. That the instant petitioner was a Civil Volunteer enrolled in First Panel under Harishchandrapur Police Station having Roll No. 176. After lodging the case the petitioner was demobilized. After the submission of the final report the petitioner had submitted a prayer on 19.03.2019 for re-instating him in the post of Civic Volunteer stating he has been bailed in the above noted case which was duly forwarded and sent to Reserve Office, Malda for necessary action. The prayer should have been stating the words that he was discharged from the case. Due to which he was not allowed to join ascertaining that he is still involved in a criminal case. IV. That after which the alleged Civic Volunteer had submitted another prayer on 13.04.2023 before Superintendent of Police, Malda but the said Civic Volunteer was found absent from then (which is more than six months) and therefore he was permanently demobilized from his service. Therefore, he could not be joined in his service after several requisitions. V. That on 2021, both panels of the Civic Volunteer of Malda District was amalgamated in one panel and all Civic Volunteers were given individual District Roll and exisiting demobilized Civic Volunteers where excluded from the newly formed list as per notification of Government of West Bengal, Home and Hill Affairs Department, Police Establishment Branch vide no. 478- PL/PB/14M-23/2021 dated- 12.02.2021. Hence, as the instant petitioner did not join before 2021, his name was excluded from the District panel.” Relying upon the finding from the said report as quoted above, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of this writ petition on the plea that the appointment being 4 contractual, there is no scope for any interference by this Court with regard to the decision of demobilization of the petitioner from his contractual job. More so, weighing the charges against the petitioner as would be depicted from the police report. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that this Court, at the outside, is of the view that admittedly the employment of the petitioner was a contractual one. A contractual employment always depends on the discretion of the employer, of course the discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Considering the charges framed against the petitioner, may be the petitioner has not been found guilty in the criminal trial, it appears that there was a cloud raised on the moral turpitude of the petitioner who was in a disciplined force. In as much as, the scope of the criminal case initiated against the petitioner and the scope of the employment dispute for which the contractual employment of the petitioner was demobilized are totally different, even though the charges may be identical. In the facts of this case, this writ Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is of the view that this Court shall not exercise its discretion in interfering with the decision of the police authorities in demobilizing the petitioner from his contractual job. 5 However, if the petitioner so advised, the petitioner may be at liberty to file a properly framed civil suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court challenging the said decision for demobilization from this contractual employment. The petitioner in such case shall have to file the civil suit within six weeks from date. It is made clear that in the event, such civil suit is filed, the jurisdictional Civil Court shall decide the same on its own merit independently and without being influenced by any observation made by this Court on the merit of the termination. On the above terms, this writ petition being WPA 11990 of 2025 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Aniruddha Roy, J.)