Subrata Talukdar, J. - (1.) Under challenge in this appeal is the order dated 14th of May, 2010 passed in W.P. 12120 (W) of 2009 (for short W.P.-II). By the said order of 14th May, 2010, the Learned Trial Court was pleased to take notice of a previous order dated 27th November, 2008 in W.P.21762 (W) of 2007 (for short W.P.-I).
(2.) Since this case has a fairly long chequered history, it shall be necessary to set out in extenso the relevant orders dated 27th November, 2008 in W.P.-I and in W.P-II, the former finding substantively mention in the latter order: 14th May, 2010 " W.P. 12120 (W) of 2009 Mr. Tulsidas Roy Mr. Himangshu Ghosh ... For the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice upon them. No accommodation is prayed for. Leave is granted to file affidavit of service to the matter in course of May 18, 2010. The subject matter of challenge in this writ application is an order of suspension dated February, 22, 2007 passed against the petitioner in connection with his services as Field Manager/Field Organizer of the respondent no.1. The above order was passed by the respondent authority in terms of Rule 7(3) of the West Bengal Service Classification (Control & Appeal), Rules, 1971 read with Rule 63 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Development & Finance Corporation Service Rules, 1987. The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing No.21762 (W) of 2007 which was disposed of on November, 27, 2008 with the following directions upon the respondent authority:- "Considering all these aspects, the present with application is disposed of with liberty to the respondent authority to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry in accordance with rules and if initiated, this must be concluded within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In the event of the authority's failing to do so, the disciplinary proceeding will automatically come to end. It will be open for the petitioner, in that event, to seek redressal of his grievance. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit in opposition has been filed, the allegations/averments made in the application are deemed not to have been admitted. It is revealed from the record that subsequently a charge-sheet dated January 20, 2009 was issued against the petitioner initiating a disciplinary proceeding has not yet been completed. Having heard the learned Counsel as also considering the materials-on-record, I find that in view of the order dated November 27, 2008 passed in W.P. No.21762 (W) of 2007, the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding automatically came to an end after expiry of a period of three months from the date of communication of the above order. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground for keeping the petitioner under suspension by virtue of the impugned order of suspension. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension dated February 22, 2007 is quashed and set aside. This writ application is thus disposed of."
(3.) Mr. Sundarananda Pal, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the present appellant/West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Development and Finance Corporation (for short the Corporation), submits that the Learned Trial Court by the order of 14th May, 2010 could not have taken a view in favour of the closure of the Disciplinary Proceeding (for short DP) against the writ petitioner/present respondent.;