Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30612 (CAL)

INDRAJIT DHAR v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

WPA/1314/2026 · 2026-07-27

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. 10 (1629) 27.07.2026 (JPD 6) (S. Banerjee) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side WPA 1314 of 2026 Indrajit Dhar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Swarp Paul Mr. Deborshi Dhar Ms. Taniya Bhowmik … for the petitioner Mr. Samar Rakshit Ms. Somdutta Patra … for the State Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya Mr. Anirban Banerjee … for the WBBSE On the prayer of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, leave is granted to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to impleade the President in-Charge, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as a party-respondent in this writ petition. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in Physical Education of a high school. 2 Pursuant to registration of an FIR against the petitioner, he was arrested on June 11, 2026. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on July 2, 2026. The petitioner claims that on and from July 3, 2026, the petitioner rendered his service as an Assistant Teacher in the school till the first half of July 13, 2026 and on July 13, 2026, the petitioner was served with an order of suspension dated July 2, 2026. Mr. Paul, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR do not pertain to any allegation regarding service of the petitioner in the said school. He places reliance upon the decision of the coordinate Benches in the case of Basudev Malik Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported at 2004(1) CHN 32 and Gopal Chandra Patra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported at 2004(7) SLR 62 in support of his contention that since the petitioner was arrested for an alleged offence committed beyond the scope of his duties as an Assistant Teacher and such offence is neither directed against the institution nor the property of the institution, there is no scope to keep the 3 petitioner under suspension till the disposal of the criminal case. Heard Ms. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. She submits that the decision with regard to keeping the petitioner under suspension or to withdraw the same, can be taken only after a request in that regard is submitted by the school authority before the Board. The school authority has been impleaded as party-respondent in this writ petition. Copy of this writ petition has already been served upon the school authority. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. In spite of service none appears for the school authority. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the State. In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice 4 would be sub-served if the petitioner is given an opportunity to submit an application for revocation of the order of suspension before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and the Board is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit an appropriate application before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education praying for revoking/withdrawing/ cancelling the order of suspension dated July 2, 2026 and if such an application is submitted, the President-in-Charge of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, being the added respondent, shallconsider the same and dispose of the application in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of two weeks from the receipt of such application along with a server copy of this order. Needless to mention that the said respondent authority shall also consider 5 the aforesaid decisions referred to hereinbefore while passing the reasoned order. In case the added respondent contemplates any adverse decision against the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioner or his authorized representative and dispose of the same within the time limit mentioned hereinbefore. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)