24/08 2026 AD/12/18 266312 NANDY (DISMISSED) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/20093/2026 MD. EMAN HQUE VS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Mr. Pritam Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Md. Habibur Rahman, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocate ……for the UoI 1. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has sought for time to take instruction in the matter. 2. The dismissal of the petitioner from service on the ground that criminal proceedings initiated against him are pending, was challenged on the ground that the name of the petitioner and of the person against whom criminal charges had been made and proceedings initiated, were different persons, on account whereof the dismissal of the petitioner from service was unjustified. 3. As it appears from the records, the authorities have taken several detailed steps, including investigation by the concerned authorities and taking of evidence by the authorities from all relevant persons which have been produced in Court in a sealed envelope and have been duly perused prior to passing this order. 4. The said documents have been returned to Mr. Agarwal. Learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India, after sealing the said envelope. 5. Mr. Chowdhury was unable to obtain any P a g e | 2 instructions and has thereafter, in his usual fairness, left the matter to be decided by this Court without any further submissions. 6. On the basis of the documents which have been annexed to the writ-petition and, more importantly, those disclosed by Mr. Agarwal, it is clear that the petitioner and the persons against whom several proceedings have been initiated are one and the same person. 7. The report filed by the Superintendent of Police, District Intelligence Branch (DIB), is clear and unequivocal and I find no reason to doubt the same. 8. The petitioner was unable to produce any document to raise any reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court that the person against whom such charges have been levelled and are pending adjudication and the petitioner are different persons with a similar name. 9. In view of the afore-stated findings, as recorded in the investigation reports, the writ-petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. 11. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 3