16th September, 2026 (D/L No.16) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.S.T. 25 of 2026 Pankaj Kumar Mondal Versus State of West Bengal and others Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Mr. Abir Lal Chakraborty, Mr. S. K. Hidayatullah … for the petitioner. Mr. D. N. Ray, ld. G.P., Mr. Madhu Jana, Mr. Guddu Singh … for the State. 1. The writ petition was filed claiming that the writ petitioner was remediless for want of a Functional West Bengal Administrative Tribunal as there is no member in the Tribunal. 2. Considering the grievance of the petitioner supported by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1997)3 SCC 261 read with decision in the case of Roger Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Limited represented by its Chief Manager and others reported in (2020)6 SCC 1, we proceeded to take up the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant and the learned State advocate. 4. The writ petitioner/appellant obtained employment in the Kolkata Police suppressing facts regarding gross misconduct committed by 2 him while earlier serving in the Central Reserve Police Force. 5. Based on such allegations, he was proceeded against departmentally. The date of the charge memo alleging gross misconduct is 30.10.2000. The enquiry resulted in submission of an Enquiry Report dated 06.11.2007. Last paragraph of the enquiry report is being relied upon by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant to submit that the Enquiry Officer held the charges proves subject to result of the pending criminal proceeding in respect of the same charges, arising out of Hare Street P.S. Case No.776 dated 24.11.2000. A plain reading of the paragraph relied upon, however, reveals that the submission of the enquiry report was without any such condition as is sought to be argued in court today. The said paragraph holds the charges proved beyond any shadow of doubt. It thereafter records that suitable action be taken after finding of the court in criminal trial. The fact that the charges were proved, therefore, was conclusive and unambiguous. 6. The enquiry report was accepted, thereafter, by the Disciplinary Authority (Deputy Commissioner of Police) after issuing a show-cause to the petitioner, containing the proposed punishment of dismissal. Thereafter, a final order was passed 3 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police imposing the punishment of dismissal by an order dated 24.07.2008. 7. The dismissal order was unsuccessfully challenged by the writ petitioner/appellant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and, thereafter, before the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.S.T.149 of 2010. The writ petition was dismissed on 19.12.2011. 8. The petitioner/appellant was acquitted in the criminal trial 13(thirteen) years thereafter, by a judgment dated 07.06.2024. Relying on the judgment, the petitioner/appellant made a representation to the Appellate Authority on 28.01.2025. The representation claimed benefit of the acquittal to be extended to the writ petitioner/appellant in respect of the punishment of dismissal dated 24.07.2008, awarded to him in the departmental proceeding. 9. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant submits that the Appellate Authority passed an order thereupon wherein he has failed to consider that having regard to the nature of material brought before the trial and the departmental proceeding, the writ petitioner/appellant was entitled to be extended the benefit of acquittal in the departmental proceeding; and his dismissal order dated 4 24.07.2008 was liable to be set aside. He was also entitled to be granted all consequential benefits as if no punishment was imposed upon the writ petitioner/appellant. 10. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999)3 SCC 679. He has drawn attention of the court towards the paragraph 22 of the judgment in support of his contention. 11. Learned State advocate, on the other hand, submits that the dismissal attained finality between the parties by virtue of order of the co- ordinate Bench in W.P.S.T.149 of 2010 dated 19.12.2011. The co-ordinate Bench upheld the petitioner’s/appellant’s dismissal. Therefore, there is no occasion for reagitating any claim with reference to the dismissal in question. He has further submitted that the law does not contemplate automatic grant of benefit of an acquittal to a person in the departmental proceedings arising out of the same charges. 12. The standard of proof being different. The law does not contemplate grant of automatic benefit of such acquittal in a departmental proceeding. He, therefore, submits that the appellate authority rightly rejected the 5 petitioner’s/ appellant’s representation, substantially seeking automatic benefit of finding in the trial in respect of his dismissal order. He has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Sankar Ghosh reported in (2014)3 SCC 610. 13. We have considered the rival submissions. 14. The facts are not in dispute which we have recorded above. After a departmental enquiry; and considering the material on record, the disciplinary authority recorded an order of dismissal dated 24.07.2008. The dismissal attained finality by an order dated 19.12.2011 passed in WPST 149 of 2010. There is no scope for the petitioner/appellant to contend that the same was dependent upon a finding, which was likely to arrive in future in the criminal trail, in the realm of future. 15. The writ petitioner/appellant did not prefer any appeal against the dismissal order. The dismissal order passed in 2008, thereafter was put to challenge in the present proceeding filed in 2025 relying only on the petitioner’s/ appellant’s acquittal in respect of the same charges in the criminal trial. 16. We have perused the petitioner’s/ appellant’s representation seeking extension of 6 benefit of acquittal. The representation is dated 28.01.2025. The substance of which is seeking of automatic benefit of the acquittal recorded in the criminal trial. 17. The petitioner/appellant has not made out any case so as to substantiate the claim based on oneness of the material considered in the departmental proceeding vis-à-vis the criminal trial. 18. The claim of the petitioner/appellant is articulated in paragraph 3 of the representation. Without reference to any material considered in the departmental proceeding, let alone, claiming parity in respect thereof with reference to material in the criminal trial. 19. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), therefore, does not support the writ petitioner’s/appellant’s claim. 20. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sankar Ghosh (supra) relied upon by the learned State advocate has considered and stated the legal proposition that grant of benefit of the findings of the criminal trial are not to be automatically extended in a departmental proceeding. 21. A perusal of these two judgments leaves no ambiguity on the legal position that the criminal 7 trial and the departmental proceeding are conducted on different standard of proof. Based on the strict standard of proof and applying the provisions of the Evidence Act, the same charge may not be established in a criminal trial, but be held proved on a lighter standard of proof, based on preponderance of probability in the departmental proceeding. The standard of proof being different, the law does not contemplate extension of benefit of an acquittal awarded in a criminal trial automatically as claimed by the writ petitioner/appellant in the present proceeding. 22. We, therefore, find that no case is made out for interference with the findings of the Appellate Authority dated 20.03.2025 on the representation filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Original Application being O.A. No.298 of 2025 also stands dismissed in these terms. Copy of this order be communicated to the Registry of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)