Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nCalcutta High Court (Appellete Side)\nAnwarul Hoque vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 December, 2021   32\n20.12.2021.\n   d.p.\n\n\n                           In The High Court At Calcutta\n                          Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction\n                                  Appellate Side\n\n                                  W.P.A 17799 of 2021\n                                 (Via Video Conference)\n\n                                     Anwarul Hoque\n                                        -versus\n                             State of West Bengal & Ors.\n\n\n                         Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty,\n                         Mr. Kaustav Shome.\n                                     ...For the Petitioner.\n\n                         Mr. Md. Sarwar Jahan,\n                         Mr. Sk. Nayeemul Hoque.\n                                     ...For the Respondent No.4.\n                         Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya,\n                         Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay.\n                                     ...For the State.\n\n                    The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant\n              Teacher in a primary school in the year 1995. On 4th\n              April, 2005 he was implicated in a criminal case under\n              sections 302/114/34 of the Indian Penal Code read\n              with sections 3 / 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.\n\n                    The    petitioner   was     taken   in   custody    and\n              thereafter enlarged on bail on 29th March, 2006. After\n              being released on bail the petitioner was permitted to\n              resume his duties in the school by an order dated 19th\n              October,    2006    passed   by    the    Chairman   of   the\n              Murshidabad District Primary School Council. The\n              period of absence from 21st November, 2005 to the day\n              before joining was treated as leave without pay.\n                       2\n      The petitioner was thereafter, appointed as the\nhead teacher of a primary school on 4th June, 2010.\n\n      The petitioner was convicted in the criminal case\nthat was pending against him. The appeal preferred by\nthe   petitioner   challenging     his    conviction      stood\ndismissed.\n\n      The petitioner thereafter was released on bail by\nthe order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the Court\ntook into consideration that the petitioner had already\nundergone approximately 10 years' imprisonment.\n\n      The petitioner submits that he is due to attain his\nage of superannuation early next year (31.01.2022). He\nhas not been permitted to resume duties on and from\nJuly 2011 after being convicted in the criminal case. He\nwas taken in custody and thereafter released on bail in\ncompliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt on 13th September, 2021.\n\n      The petitioner has filed representation before the\nChairman,    Murshidabad       District      Primary     School\nCouncil permitting him to join his duties and to process\nhis retirement papers. The representation filed by the\npetitioner   on    27th    October,      2021     is    pending\nconsideration till date. A further representation was\nfiled before the Sub-Inspector of School, Beldanga East\nCircle, Murshidabad on 29th October, 2021 and the\nsame is also pending consideration.\n\n      The petitioner relies upon an order passed by a\nCoordinate   Bench    of    this   Hon'ble      Court   on   1st\nDecember, 2011 in W.P. 11207 (W) of 2008 in the\nmatter of Dilip Kumar Biswas -vs- State of West Bengal\nreported in 2011 SCC online Cal 4827 wherein the\n                      3\n\n\n\n\nCourt was pleased to set aside the suspension order.\nThe Court observed that as the employee attained the\nage of superannuation and no disciplinary proceeding\nwas pending against him, the order of suspension\ncannot be made alive.\n\n      In the present case, the petitioner is still in\nservice and the employer does not contemplate any\ndisciplinary proceeding at this stage.\n\n      In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner\nwas under deemed suspension when he was taken in\ncustody for more than 48 hours. Thereafter, being\nenlarged on bail the petitioner was permitted to resume\nhis duties. He was also appointed to the post of head\nteacher. After he was convicted he was taken in custody\nand he remained in custody till he was released on bail\nby order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.\n\n      The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India -vs-\nRajiv Kumar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 516 paragraph\n29 was dealing with suspension of an employee under\nthe provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification,\nControl and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The expression 'until\nfurther orders' fell for consideration before the court.\nThe court was considering as to whether the order of\nsuspension   would    be   effective   for   the   period   of\ndetention alone. The court categorically held that the\norder of suspension does not lose its efficacy and is not\nautomatically terminated the moment detention came\nto an end and the person is set at large.\n      The court also took into consideration the plea\nraised relating to suspension for a very long period. The\ncourt was of the opinion that the order of suspension\ndoes not become invalid merely because it is for a long\nperiod.\n                           4\n        In the matter of Birbhum District Primary School\nCouncil & Anr. -vs- Md. Mukhtar Hossain & Ors.\nreported in 2009(1) CHN 476 the court held that merely\nbecause the suspension continues for a long period\nwould not invalidate the suspension or lead to any\nconclusion    that   the       duration    of   the   suspension\nstipulated in that Rule is till the release of the primary\nteacher following the detention.\n\n        The court further held that to infer that the sub-\nrule discontinues the suspension on cessation of\ndetention would be to plant words therein and imply\ncasus omissus when there is no case of strong necessity\nto presume the inadvertence in the drafting of the sub-\nrule.\n\n        In the present case no further order has been\npassed either modifying or reviewing the suspension.\n\n        In view of the law laid down hereinabove, I am of\nthe opinion that the order of suspension is still valid.\n\n        The petitioner submits that he has not been paid\nhis subsistence allowance.\n\n        The petitioner has already filed a representation\nbefore the Chairman and the Council highlighting his\ngrievances.\n\n        As it appears that the petitioner is due to retire\non 31st January, 2022, the instant writ petition is\ndisposed of by directing the Chairman, Murshidabad\nDistrict Primary School Council being the respondent\nNo.4 herein to take a decision in response to the\nrepresentation    filed       by   the   petitioner   strictly   in\n                         5\n\n\n\n\naccordance with law, in the light of the observations\nmade hereinabove at the earliest, but positively within a\nperiod of five weeks from the date of communication of\na copy of this order.\n\n      The said respondent shall pass a reasoned order\nand   communicate           the   same   to   the   petitioner\nimmediately thereafter.\n\n      W.P.A. 17799 of 2021 stands disposed of.\n\n      Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be\nsupplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as\npossible.\n\n                                         ( Amrita Sinha, J.)