25.08.2026 Item no.D/L 27 Court No. 18 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 22452 of 2026 In the matter of: Debasish Ray …. Petitioner VS. The State of West Bengal & Anr. ….Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya Mr. Anindya Bhattacharyya ….Advocates For the State: Mr. J. Mukherjee Mr. Yudhisthir Maity ….Advocates For the Respondent no.2: Mr. Sarwar Jahan Ms. Mousumi Mitra Ms. Shalini Sen Ms. Sahina Parvin Mr. Aritra Ranjan Dutta Roy ….Advocates 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that summons have been issued against him repeatedly on July 21, 2026 and August 11, 2026 to appear as a prosecution witness against one Shri Krishna Hari an Upper Division Assistant in the Secondary Branch of School Education Department. 3. The petitioner is also aggrieved that the summons have not been issued in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in any such act of commission or omission which could entail any proceeding against Page 2 him. Hence, to issue summons to his client without necessary particulars and indeed asking him to carry documents, without intimating him about the nature of such documents, is a clear violation of the rights of the petitioner. 5. The second limb of his submission is that the enquiring authority has issued the summons in violation of Section 5(2) of the West Bengal Act XXIV of 1973, The Departmental Proceedings (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1973. 6. In terms of such provision, the summons can be served by an authority asking the person to appear as a witness, only through the Chief Presidency Magistrate if it is in Calcutta or through the concerned District Judge of the District of which the person, whose presence is sought for, resides. The petitioner herein resides in Uttar Dinajpur and the summons ought to have been served on him through the office of the learned District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur. 7. Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2 being the enquiring officer herein submits that the petitioner is well aware of the facts of the case and has only been called as a prosecution witness and not to face charges of any short. 8. He has, however, in his usual fairness admitted that there has been a violation of Section 5(2) of the said Act. 9. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears for State and makes his submissions. 10. I have heard the learned advocate for the parties and considered the documents on record. 11. The process in which the summons of July 21, 2026 and August 11, 2026 have been served is in clear violation of the provisions laid Page 3 down in Section 5(2) of the said Act. It is an accepted proposition that when the law stipulates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. 12. It is equally true that in the instant case, the said process has not been followed and there is a clear violation of Section 5(2) in issuing the summons directly to the petitioner without going through the office of the learned District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur. 13. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the semblance of summons dated July 21, 2026 and August 11, 2026 did not reveal any particulars of what documents are to be carried by the petitioner, if he were to depose as a prosecution witness. Without any such particulars being intimated to the petitioner, the petitioner will not be able to depose in a manner which would aid the enquiry. 14. In view of the aforestated findings, the notices purporting to be summons dated July 21, 2026 and August 11, 2026 are set aside. 15. The enquiring authority will, however, be at liberty to issue the summons in the prescribed format and through the learned District Judge of the concerned District where the petitioner resides in accordance with law and in compliance of all applicable provisions. 16. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)