Calcutta High Court
WPA/23633/2026 of SUNIL KAPRI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 8 September 2026
2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. WPA 23633 of 2026 Sri Sunil Kapri Vs. Union of India and others. --------------- Ms. Sikta Roy. … for the petitioner. Ms. Anindita Maity, Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Ms. Banani Bhattacharya. …
08.09.
Ct. No. 18
Ab
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE.
WPA 23633 of 2026
Sri Sunil Kapri
Vs.
Union of India and others.
---------------
Ms. Sikta Roy.
… for the petitioner.
Ms. Anindita Maity,
Mr. Sukanta Ghosh,
Ms. Banani Bhattacharya.
… for the Union of India.
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. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record.
2. The petitioner is serving as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). He is aggrieved that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of a complaint, where the complainant could not be traced.
3. Ms. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that this was a complaint under pseudo name made by an alleged complainant whose identity was never established. The disciplinary proceeding has now culminated into an order of punishment, which is withholding of four increments of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India, submits that this complaint was not the basis on which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The complaint on which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated from the Headquarters and the petitioner has been found guilty and has been meted the punishment after exhausting the entire process of Enquiring Authority and the disciplinary proceeding.
5. It is true that during pendency of the writ petition, the proceeding has been terminated by way of an order of punishment. The petitioner has a statutory remedy under Chapter 13 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The scope in a judicial review is rather limited on account whereof Ms. Roy seeks leave to approach the Appellate Authority to proceed with an appeal from the impugned order.
6. The impugned order has not been challenged in the instant writ petition, understandably, since it was passed during pendency of the writ petition.
7. The petitioner is granted leave to prefer an appeal from the impugned order before the concerned Appellate Authority. The appeal will be filed by September 20, 2026. The Appellate Authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned will dispose of the appeal by December 15, 2026.
8. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)