25 jdt. 15.09.2026 jb. WPA 727 of 2026 (Pijus Kanti Rajak vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay Mr. Satya Ranjan Kundu Ms. Trishtrya Mancherji …. For the Petitioner Mr. Madhu Jana Ms. Puja Sonkar …. For the State Heard learned counsels for the parties. The fact of the case has been recorded in the order passed on 9th July, 2026. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Executive Officer, Raghunathpur 1 Panchayat Samiti on 2nd May, 2012 directing recovery of Rs.8,18,500/- from the petitioner. Admittedly the said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The order records that it is subject to the order of the trial Court in connection with the FIR lodged against the petitioner being no. 46/2010 dated 24th June, 2010. Trial of the said case has culminated in an order of acquittal of the petitioner and other accused persons. In the result, the order impugned passed by the Executive Officer which is subject to the order passed by the learned trial Court also loses its force. It appears from the said order that it has been passed solely on the basis of the findings of the enquiry authority and related documents. There is no reflection in the order that copy of enquiry report was provided to the petitioner, he was granted an opportunity to respond to the said report, a proceeding was initiated pursuant to the said report, evidence was recorded or the petitioner had the opportunity 2 to cross-examine the witnesses relied upon by the authority. The order has been passed unilaterally holding the petitioner to be guilty of negligence, misconduct and misappropriation of Government fund solely on the basis of the findings of the enquiry authority. The procedure laid down for conducting a departmental proceeding against an employee has not been followed at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 15th June, 2026 in MAT 577 of 2020 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held as hereunder: “41. A careful scrutiny of the enquiry proceedings reveals that the management witnesses were neither confronted with the documentary records relied upon by the disciplinary authority nor were they called upon to explain the contents, relevance and evidentiary value of such documents. The witnesses merely made telegraphic statements without establishing the nexus between the documentary materials and the allegations leveled against the petitioner. Consequently, the documents relied upon by the management remained formally unproved in accordance with the requirements of a fair departmental enquiry. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are based on no material.” The ratio decidendi of the said judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the order impugned has been passed without following the due process of law. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the order impugned being arbitrary, unilateral and 3 without due process of law, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the order passed by the Executive Officer, Raghunathpur 1 Panchayat Samiti on 2nd May, 2012 is quashed/set aside. The Executive Officer, Raghunathpur I Panchayat Samiti, being the 6th respondent herein, is directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,18,500/- deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The said authority is further directed to release the increments of the petitioner withheld for five years from the date of his last increment within the said period of time. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)