24/08 2026 AD/39/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/8523/2026 SANJIB PAUL VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL ORS. Mr. Kallol Bose, Advocate Mr. Guddu Singh, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Amrita Lal Dhar, Advocate Mr. Arghya Chatterjee, Advocate ……for the State 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the acts of commission and/or omission of the respondent authorities. 2. The petitioner is a Head Assistant under the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, currently attached to the RTO, Alipurduar. The petitioner was subjected to certain criminal charges and the criminal proceedings against him are pending. By virtue of these criminal charges, the petitioner has been suspended from service sometime in 2020. 3. Quite contrary to the stipulated review committee meetings as contained in the memorandum no. 9266- F(P) dated November 16, 2012, the last review committee meeting has been held in January 2023, whereby and whereunder the review committee decided to continue with the petitioner's suspension, though the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was increased. The said order was reviewed on March 27, 2023. 4. Thereafter, there has been no meeting of the review committee though a period of more than three years has lapsed. 5. This is quite understandable, since there was no P a g e | 2 basis on which the review committee could hold a meeting as the articles of charge, the charge-sheet thereby, has not been framed against the petitioner from 2020 and he continues to be placed under suspension till date. 6. The petitioner cannot be kept in a state of suspended animation for eternity. 7. The decision relied upon by Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, in WPA/4/2024 (Taposh Kumar Roy Vs. State of West Bengal) is clear and unequivocal inasmuch as that the petitioner cannot be kept in suspension for eternity. 8. Accordingly, the order of suspension dated November 2, 2020 is set aside with all consequential steps to be taken by the concerned authorities. 9. I, however, make it clear that if the authorities are of the opinion that the continuation of service by the petitioner at such place of posting is an impediment or the authorities apprehend that the petitioner may create a hindrance in disciplinary proceedings, which may be undertaken at some stage, the authorities will be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to an appropriate place/office. 10. Since affidavits have not been called for, allegations contained in the petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. 11. With these observations as afore-stated, the writ- petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 12. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order, be given to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 3