21.03.2025 (D/L-9) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.) W.P.S.T. 203 of 2024 Swajan Shome Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Asim Kumar Niyogi, Mr. Vaskar Pal ...for the Petitioner Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. AGP, Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, Mr. Biman Halder ...for the State Respondents Ms. Sraboni Sarkar, Ms. Krishna Yadav ...for the P.S.C/Respondent No. 6 1. The petitioner was visited with adverse entries in his ACR for the period 26th May, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 and from 1st April, 2017 to 22nd November, 2017. The petitioner preferred an Original Application raising his grievance that the ACRs were unfounded and without considering his explanation or reply. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) by filing O.A. No. 433 of 2019. The Original Application was disposed of giving the petitioner an opportunity to make his representation which was to be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order by the authorities. The petitioner’s representation has been considered by an order dated 21st June, 2022. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.S.T. 2 No. 64 of 2024, filed earlier. After considering the entire matter the writ petitioner earlier filed by the petitioner was dismissed in the following terms: “In the order impugned the learned Tribunal observed, inter alia that the petitioner had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and that he had suppressed the fact that he was facing three departmental proceedings. However, on the prayer of the petitioner to grant him an opportunity to correct himself, the learned Tribunal disposed of the OA granting him liberty to file a representation afresh against the adverse entries in the ACRs. Records reveal that in compliance with the order impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner duly submitted a representation before the competent authority on 17th May, 2022 and the same was considered and disposed of by an order dated 21st June, 2022 passed by the competent authority. Though the said order dated 21st June, 2022 gave rise to a fresh cause of action, the petitioner did not challenge the same before the appropriate forum and affirmed the present writ petition before this Court about two years thereafter on 20th March, 2022. In the said conspectus, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.” 2. Thereafter the petitioner has again filed an Original Application before the SAT. O.A. No. 350 of 2024 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal taking note of the facts and circumstances regarding his having unsuccessfully availed remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.S.T. 64 of 2024. It is this order of the Tribunal which is assailed by the petitioner in the present proceedings. 3 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, his representation against the ACR was not considered in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that since the petitioner has already availed remedy before the High Court with respect to the same findings, in W.P.S.T 64 of 2024 which has been dismissed, there was no scope for the petitioner, who did not even avail liberty before the High Court for availing remedy elsewhere, to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal by filing a fresh Original Application. 5. We are in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the State. We thus find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)