28.09.2026 Item no.14 Ct. no.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. 7736 of 2026 Chandra Sekhar Dutta versus State of West Bengal & ors. , Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajendra Chaturvedi Mr. Goutam Kumar Hazra Mr. Satyasaroth Hazra ... for the petitioner Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Ms. Sneha Chatterjee … for the State Mr. Saibal Acharyya Mr. Tanweer J. Mondal … for the DPSC, Purba Bardhaman 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no.5, the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Purba Bardhaman (in short, „DPSC‟) to revisit the suspension order dated 14th March, 2023, being annexure P5 to the writ petition, upon considering the representations of the petitioner dated 20th March, 2023 and 6th February, 2026, being annexures P7 and P8 to the writ petition, respectively. 3. The petitioner contends that he joined as an Assistant Teacher in Sri Sri Netai Raman (S.C.) F.P. School (66), Katwa West Circle, District Purba Burdwan on 22nd January, 2014. Subsequently, the petitioner was 2 transferred to Keshia Free Primary School, Katwa West Circle, Purba Bardhaman, where he joined on 20th June, 2016. On sudden demise of his wife a criminal case was initiated against the petitioner and others being Katwa Police Station Case No.991 of 2022 dated 14th December, 2022 under Sections 498A/306/304B/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short „IPC‟) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibitions Act (corresponding to GR Case No.1692 of 2022). The petitioner was arrested on 14th December, 2022 and was enlarged on bail on 9th March, 2023. Since the petitioner was detained in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by the order of respondent no.5, Chairman of the DPSC issued on 14th March, 2023. Initially, the petitioner made a representation on 20th March, 2023 for withdrawal of the suspension order. Subsequent thereto, on 6th February, 2026 the petitioner once again made a similar prayer for withdrawal of order of suspension. However, the representations of the petitioner has not been considered as yet. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be put under suspension for an indefinite period. After passing of the order of suspension three years have elapsed and due to subsistence of suspension order the petitioner is unable to resume his duty. As the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail, he seeks that the 3 matter be relegated to the appropriate authority to take a decision in respect of the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he relies on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed in (i) Chhabi Chakraborty -versus- State of West Bengal & ors., reported in 2006(1) CHN 34; (ii) Chandan Goray alias Gorai -versus- State of West Bengal & ors., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 1019 and (iii) Debajit Maitra -versus- The State of West Bengal & ors., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 4129. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in Birbhum District Primary School Council & anr. -versus- Md. Mokhtar Hossain & ors., reported in 2009(1) CHN 476. 5. Both Mr. Saibal Acharyya, learned Advocate representing the DPSC, Purba Bardhaman and Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, learned Advocate representing the State submit that the matter may be sent to the authority concerned to take a decision in accordance with law. 6. In the light of the facts enumerated in the foregoing paragraph let me deal with the decision relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. 7. In Chhabi Chakraborty (supra) while examining the question whether the deemed suspension is permissible or not and if permissible what is its period of effect the court observed as hereunder: 4 “12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Rajib Kumar (supra) examined the provisions of Rule 10 with its sub-rules and got satisfied that the same is not unconstitutional. Here, the rule is not under challenge and I have not been called upon to decide as to whether the said Rule 7(2) has its Constitutional validity or not. The expression 'life' doesn't merely connote animal existence or a continued drudgery through life. The expression 'life' has a much wider meaning. Suspension of such type without any limitation and without departmental proceedings prima facie tantamounts to imposition of penalty which cannot be done without following the principles of fair play and natural justice. 13. In another judgment reported in 1998 Vol.(1) CLJ 138, Ashit Kumar Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors. the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed that the employee cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period and the employer also cannot adopt a dilatory tactics to victimize the employee. The relevant paragraph being paragraph No.5 of this judgment is quoted hereinbelow for convenience of discussions: "Para-5: The disciplinary proceedings were not unnecessarily continuing or prolonging because of latches and/or negligence on the part of the petitioner, but because of inherent defects therein and further after the issue of the charge sheets on October 10, 1994, no chargesheet was given to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal dated June 22, 1995 and that the order of suspension was allowed to continue even after it was found that the disciplinary proceedings was illegal. This is not the way under suspension and the matter should be prolonged. Whenever an order of suspension is passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, the authority concerned should issue chargesheet within a reasonable time if the rule is silent, and the authority should conclude the same within a reasonable time and the employee cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period and the employer also cannot adopt a dilatory tactics to victimize the employee". 14. One is to bear in mind that order of suspension also touches the right to livelihood and the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India are attracted. Years together a person cannot be kept under suspension without any departmental proceeding. "15. Normally, an employee is suspended to keep him away from the place of his work so that he cannot influence the proceeding which is contemplated or which is continuing. A criminal case is initiated on a charge which is in no way connected with the working sphere of the employee. The employee got involved in the criminal case, detained in custody for more than 48 hours and he is suspended with retrospective effect for unlimited period and he is given subsistence allowance that is minimum food to exist in this world. Natural justice comes forward and shocks the conscience. An employee if involved in a criminal case for any reason whatsoever will be suspended and that too with retrospective effect and the effectiveness of the suspension or period of suspension or the date of withdrawal of suspension, nobody knows. If that is not the violation of natural justice what more it can be ? " 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that such type of deemed suspension and order on it as provided in Rule 7 (2) of the Primary Education Rule is illegal.” 5 8. In Mokhtar Hossain (supra) the Hon’ble Division Bench relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Rajib Kumar reported in AIR 2003 SC 2917 observed as follows. “24. In the present case, the learned Single Judge relied on the Basudev Malik, Chhabi Chakraborty and Malay Kumar Laha judgments to hold that the writ petitioner could not be kept under suspension after he was enlarged on bail as the suspension came to an end immediately upon the release of the writ petitioner from detention. The relevant rule does not appear to have been appropriately construed in the Basudev Malik, Chhabi Chakraborty and Malay Kumar Laha judgments and the judgments in all three cases are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Rajiv Kumar matter.” 9. Thus, it manifests that Hon’ble Division Bench in its aforesaid decision has categorically held that the relevant rule does not appear to have been appropriately construed in the Chhabi Chakraborty (supra) and two other judgments and those three judgements are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Rajiv Kumar (supra). Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Division Bench after observing the above relegated the matter for considering the representation of the petitioner. 10. Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Debajit Maitra (supra) and in Chandan Goray alias Gorai (supra) under similar facts and circumstances have relegated the matter to the authority concerned for due consideration. 11. In line with the aforesaid decision, the respondent no.5, the Chairman of the DPSC is directed to take a decision with regard to the representation of the petitioner dated 6th February, 2026 and dispose of 6 the same, in accordance with law, upon notice to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. The reasoned order is to be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such order. 13. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.5, the Chairman of the DPSC, for necessary compliance. 14. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 7736 of 2026 stands disposed of. 15. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)