Calcutta High Court
WPA/24297/2026 of SOURAV MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 23 September 2026
13 sdas WPA 24297 of 2026 Sourav Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee Ms. Sahina Khatun ……. for the petitioner Mr. D. N. Ray, learned G.P. Mr. Guddu Singh Mr. Sourav Halder ……. for the State 1. Let affidavit- of -service, as
23.09.2026
sdas
WPA 24297 of 2026
Sourav Mondal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee
Ms. Sahina Khatun
……. for the petitioner
Mr. D. N. Ray, learned G.P.
Mr. Guddu Singh
Mr. Sourav Halder
……. for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved that he has been demobilized from service. The petitioner has been in service as a Civil Volunteer. These volunteers are used as an additional force to the Kolkata Police, in view of non-availability of the regular Constables in the force. They are, thus, a part of a disciplined force. The guidelines for eligibility, mode of induction, training, duties and demobilization of Civil Volunteers provide in Clause (h) relating to disciplinary matters that in the event a Civil Volunteer is involved in any criminal case, he is liable to be demobilized. On the basis of this provision, the Civil Volunteer has been demobilized as there is a FIR lodged against him by his wife which is not just one of marital discord but also one which relates to torture and assault on the wife and the child. The Rules cannot be moulded to provide benefit to a delinquent volunteer as the Rule provides that if the petitioner is acquitted from the charges, he can be reinstated.
3. In view of the subsisting Rules as applicable to the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of demobilization dated January 31, 2025.
4. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is dismissed.
5. Dismissal of the writ petition will not deter the rights of the petitioner before any other forum which he may have under the law.
6. There will be no order as to costs.
7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)