S/L 04 27.08.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N W.P.S.T. 30 of 2026 Dr. Saikat Kundu Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rabindranath Bag. Sr. Adv., Ms. Nazni Khatun, Mr. Swagata Saha, Mr. Piyas Chowdhury … for the Petitioner. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. AGP, Ms. Kakali Dutta … for the State. 1. Heard the learned senior advocate for the applicant/writ petitioner and the learned State advocate. 2. The writ petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) with prayers including quashing of a memorandum dated 01.03.2013. It was memo no. 1833-F(P) issued by the Finance Department, Audit Branch and also seeking direction upon the respondents to consider his application dated 28.06.2016 praying for voluntary retirement within a period of six weeks. 3. The Petitioner filed the Original Application in 2018. The same was pending before the Tribunal when the Tribunal became non functional for want of any member. The petitioner was thus left remedyless and approached this Court placing reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L. Chandra Kumar –Vs.- Union of India & Others reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261 read with subsequent 2 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roger Mathew –Vs.- South Indian Bank Limited represented by its Chief Manager and Others reported in (2020) 6 SCC 1. It is under such circumstance that we proceeded to consider the writ petitioner’s claim in the present proceeding. 4. The petitioner in the Original Application stated that he joined the service as a Medical Officer on 14.07.1999. Thereafter he was continuing in medical service. He claims that he suffers severe palpitation while discharging his duties. The medical check up revealed that the petitioner was suffering with Arrhythmia. On ground of illness he, therefore, made an application for voluntary retirement on 28.06.2016. The application was not being considered. Thereafter he made subsequent reminders and applications in 2017 and thereafter which have not been acted upon. 5. In the present proceeding the learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner upon instructions confines his relief to issuance of a direction for consideration of his application dated 28.06.2016. 6. The respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition. They have placed on record a communication dated 08.09.2016 addressed to the petitioner’s last posting address intimating rejection of his application for voluntary retirement. The authorities have further stated that in view of amendment to Rule 75 of the West Bengal Service Rules Part I, voluntary retirement is not 3 available to a person in the medical service such as the present petitioner. 7. In reply thereto the writ petitioner has denied such assertion made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in- opposition with a rider in the following terms: “….except what are supported by the materials on record. ………” 8. Upon perusal of the statements made in the reply, we find no specific assertion that the rejection was not served on the petitioner. He has stated that the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition in this regard are false but except what is supported by material on record. The statements regarding rejection is accompanied with the documents forming the „material on record‟ showing rejection of his claim by a communication dated 08.09.2016. We, therefore, find no denial of the fact that his claim for voluntary retirement was rejected on 08.09.2016. The learned senior advocate has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the document. However, we are not inclined to accept such submission in view of the assertion made by the petitioner in his reply, relevant portion of which we have extracted above. 9. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the stand of the State authorities that by suppressing such rejection order, which was a relevant and material fact, the petitioner pursued his claim for voluntary retirement. The rejection order dated 08.09.2016 being a relevant 4 and material fact, we find that suppression of the same would disentitle the petitioner to any relief before the Tribunal. 10. In the present proceeding when the Writ Court is exercising extra ordinary discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief in view of the suppression of such material fact. 11. Our view is fortified by decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481. The apex court took notice of the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment lays emphasis on requirement to put forward of the facts before the court without suppressing material facts. The apex court held that if there is suppression of material fact then the writ petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 36 of the report held: 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to 5 your application because of what you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.” 12. We further take notice of a fact that the affidavit-in- opposition annexing such document was served on the learned advocate for the writ petitioner. Reply thereto has been filed. Still the writ petitioner did not take any steps for assailing such rejection order. In absence of challenge to the rejection order dated 08.09.2016, there is no scope whatsoever for the petitioner to claim any relief contrary to the rejection order. On this ground also the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for. 13. At this juncture the learned senior advocate submits that since the petitioner is suffering from ailments for the last more than a decade now. He should be accorded some consideration under the existing proviso to Rule 75 (aaaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules. We leave it to the writ petitioner to claim benefit of the provision, if so advised, in accordance with law. 14. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, we find no case made out for issuance of a direction to accept his application for voluntary retirement dated 28.06.2016. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 16. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pendency of the Original Application bearing O.A. No. 202 of 2018, would be futile and serve no useful purpose whatsoever. O.A. No. 202 of 2018 pending before the Tribunal is also disposed of accordingly. 6 17. Copy of this order be communicated to the Registry of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 18. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)