Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the correctness of the order dated 11th April, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 9962(W) of 2017 [Sanjib Sarkar Vs. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Dakshin Dinajpur & Ors.].
(2.) The order impugned relates to refusal of passing an interim order for resumption of duty by the appellant/petitioner in the concerned school as per alleged statutory provisions. The order impugned is a short one provides the background of the case. For ready reference the order impugned is quoted below: "The petitioner while serving as assistant teacher has been taken in custody in respect of a criminal case being C.R. 1054/16 so initiated. Subsequently, he was released on bail. From release thereof, a query was put by the school authorities of the whereabouts of the petitioner. In respect thereof, he submitted an application stating therein that he was engaged in the treatment of his father and as such he could not join his duties. Whereas he was in custody in connection with a criminal case which had duly been published through electronic media as well as print media. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was involved in international criminal activities of supply of snake venom and the arrest warrant is issued against him on 7th November, 2016 and was arrested on 7th January, 2017. Since the petitioner had not approached with clean hand before this Hon'ble Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is an equitable jurisdiction, learned counsel for the State is directed to bring on record the correct fact. Counsel for the petitioner prays for interim relief. Prima facie no case for interim relief is made out. Prayer for interim relief is rejected." Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner had no case.
(3.) He has been involved in a criminal activity in supplying snake venom for which he was arrested and was incarserated in jail. It also appears from the facts and the aforesaid order that he had moved a false application to the employer falsely stating that during the period of his absence he was attending his father for his treatment.;