Employer Under Obligation To Ensure No Prejudice Is Caused To Employee In Disciplinary Proceedings.: Calcutta High Court
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal has held that employer is under an obligation in a disciplinary proceeding to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the employee and this obligation involves a duty to...
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal has held that employer is under an obligation in a disciplinary proceeding to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the employee and this obligation involves a duty to act fairly
Background Facts
A chargesheet was issued against Saurav Krishna Basu (Petitioner) on 27.08.2022. On 06.09.2022, the Petitioner made a representation denying the allegations and sought an open inquiry. On 27.09.2022 the Petitioner made a further representation and prayed for allowing him to submit a written statement of defence. The Petitioner was not informed who was appointed as his Enquiry Officer, so he made a further representation on 27.06.2023 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Security), Intelligence Branch. However, by an order dated 20.07.2023, the Petitioner came to know that the appointed Enquiry Officer had observed that only the preliminary written statement of defence of the Petitioner would be considered. However, no reason was given regarding non-acceptance of the petitioner's written statement of defence.
The Petitioner filed an Original Application before the relevant Tribunal against the order of the Enquiry Officer. However, the Tribunal refused to direct the Enquiry Officer to allow the Petitioner to submit the written statement of defence on the ground that the Petitioner did not file the written statement of defence within a reasonable period of time as per Regulations 861(c) of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943. Thus, the Petitioner filed the writ petition.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that fairness and reasonableness are of paramount importance for administrative action. In a disciplinary proceeding, the employer is under an obligation to ensure that no prejudice is caused to its employee. This principle implies a duty to act fairly
The court further observed that the prayer of the Petitioner to allow him to file the written statement should not have been rejected by the Tribunal.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition was allowed.
Case No.- WPST 71 of 2024
Case Name- Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal
Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. Tulshidas Ray and Mr. Tirthankar Roy
Counsel for Respondent- Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Sr. Standing Counsel; Ms. Sonal Sinha; Ms. Ashnita Chakraborty; Mr. Akash Dutta