Calcutta High Court
WP.ST/156/2026 of SUMAN BANERJEE Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 7 August 2026
2026 (D/L No.25) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.S.T. 156 of 2024 Suman Banerjee Versus The State of West Bengal and others Ms. Satabdi Das … for the petitioner. Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Mr. Subit Majumder … for the State. 1. The affidavit of service is taken on record. 2. The writ petition
7th August, 2026
(D/L No.25)
Ct. No.4
(SKB)
W.P.S.T. 156 of 2024
Suman Banerjee
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others
Ms. Satabdi Das
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee,
Mr. Subit Majumder
… 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. The affidavit of service is taken on record.
2. The writ petition has been filed since the petitioner’s pending Original Application bearing O.A. No.397 of 2025 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal is not taken up for want of any member.
3. The writ petitioner, a Deputy Director of Agriculture (Admn.), Hooghly, was sent a communication dated 10.09.2020 carrying some allegations against him by the Director of Agriculture & Ex-Officio Secretary, West Bengal. The same contains an intention to conduct an enquiry based on the allegations annexed to the letter.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that till date a charge-memo was not issued but there is an impending threat based on the letter dated 10.09.2020. We find from perusal of the letter dated 10.09.2020, that the same is a forwarding letter, whereby the petitioner was sent intimation/copy of some complaint letter.
5. The apprehension expressed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, in our view, is not a tangible apprehension, giving the writ petitioner a cause of action to assail the communication. It is a settled law that the enquiry/proceeding, if any, would come into existence only if a charge- memo is issued.
6. In the present case, no charge-memo was issued. Learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to show from the letter that the same caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, we find no occasion to interfere with the communication dated 10.09.2020. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
7. While disposing of the writ petition, we would only observe that as and when a cause of action crystallizes based on the letter dated 10.09.2020, it will be open to the petitioner to avail remedies in accordance with law raising all issued including an issue of stale charges.
8. In view of the present order, nothing survives in the O.A. No.397 of 2025 pending before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The Original Application is also disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be communicated to the Tribunal forthwith.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)