Case title: Dr. Pranat Tudu VS The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Case no.: WPA 8647 of 2024
Dated on: 22th March 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble. MR Justice Rajasekhar Mantha
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner is a serving doctor with the Jhargram Government Medical College and Hospital, Vidyasagar Pally, Jhargram. The petitioner has tendered his resignation on 19th March, 2024 from Government Service on the sole ground that he intends to contest in the forthcoming Parliamentary Elections this year. In aid of such letter of resignation, the petitioner submitted a proforma as per the Rules of the State. Against the question at Question 20 of the proforma: “Whether the applicant is serving any Government Bond Obligation period (if, yes details of)”, the answer given by the petitioner is “Nil”, meaning No. The petitioner is extremely anxious to receive response from the Government. He has, therefore, approached this Court and prays for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents to forthwith accept his resignation application dated 19th March, 2024. The anxiety of the petitioner is that he would not get enough time to campaign for his election, if the Government delays the acceptance of resignation.
ISSUES
- whether the petitioner has, in fact, executed any bond or not would take time.
- whether the petitioner is serving any Government Bond Obligation or not.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: It states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purpose.
Clause 14 of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules: This clause seems to be relevant to the bond obligation or conditions related to resignation from government service.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The second objection taken by Mr. Sen is that the petitioner has suppressed materials facts in his proforma attached to the application for resignation. It is submitted that the writ petitioner had availed Study Leave between the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 for two years to undergo “DNB (PDCET-2020), Radiodiagnosis, Session 2020 at Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata – 700054. He was allowed such Study Leave subject to observance of West Bengal Service Rules, Part I, Appendix No.5, Clause 2(a). His leave salary during the Study Leave period would also be governed by the West Bengal Service Rules Part I, Appendix No.5, Clause 7(2). The petitioner was admittedly granted one-year initial Study Leave by an order dated 29th June, 2020. The leave was extended for a further period of 12 months on 29th July, 2021. The fourth point urged by Mr. Sen is that the benefit under Clause 14 Sub-Clause (3) sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not even have been pleaded in the writ petition. There is no application made to the Governor as on date.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Learned Senior Counsel for the State, Mr. Amal Kumar Sen has raised three-fold objections. The first objection is that the petitioner has not even given breathing time to the respondents to respond to petitioner’s application. The writ petition is, therefore, premature. Mr. Amal Kumar Sen has thirdly argued by reference to Clause 14 above, that the concept of public interest is vital to the invocation of any benefit under Clause 14. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim permanent discharge by resignation from the service of the State. No Writ of Mandamus, therefore, can be issued in favour of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts. In the event the petitioner had, in fact, executed any Bond the terms and conditions of such Bond would prevail over and above Appendix 5 and the restrictions contained thereunder. Such restrictions cannot be more stringent than Clause 14 of Appendix 5. It is only in respect of any gray area or matters not dealt with under any Bond that would have to be addressed by reference to the Clauses under Appendix 5.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts. In the event the petitioner had, in fact, executed any Bond the terms and conditions of such Bond would prevail over and above Appendix 5 and the restrictions contained thereunder. Such restrictions cannot be more stringent than Clause 14 of Appendix 5. It is only in respect of any gray area or matters not dealt with under any Bond that would have to be addressed by reference to the Clauses under Appendix 5. This Court is of the clear view that the petitioner is bound by Clause 14 of Appendix 5 and the same is a pre-condition for his resignation to be accepted. Across the Bar Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions that his client is willing to refund all and every some specified in Clause 14 above. On the last objection raised by Mr. Amal Kumar Sen on the absence of pleadings for the benefit under Clause 14 of Appendix 5 to the West Bengal Service Rules, it is now well-settled that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always be moulded by the High Court. The absence of prayers and pleadings may only be fatal where a Rule or law is invoked wholly unconnected with or alien to the facts and circumstances pleaded in the writ petition. This Court is of the view that the benefit of Clause 14 of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules being sought by the petitioner is something that arises out of the facts of the case as also and the arguments advanced by both parties in respect of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules indicated hereinabove. On the issue of public interest being the primary consideration under Clause 14, apart from the same being directory, this Court is of the view that when any person seeks to contest an election to the post of a public representative, he is deemed as a person seeking to represent the public at large. There is, therefore, deemed public interest in a person seeking to contest in an election and to be a representative of the people. In the above circumstances, this Court directs the respondent No.2 to accept the resignation of the petitioner within a period of 48 hours of all and any refund being made by the petitioner under Clause 14 of Appendix 5 of the West Bengal Service Rules referred to hereinabove. Upon making such refund, the petitioner shall be entitled to treat himself as having discontinued the service of the State. Any differences and deficit in calculation of the sums of money required to be deposited in terms of Clause 14 may be adjudicated against the petitioner and retained from any benefits of his service by the State paid under Clause 14 above. If any prayer under Clause 14 is entertained and allowed by the Governor, the respondent No.2 shall be obliged to refund such amounts to the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. The Court, therefore, should not entertain any plea of the writ petitioner in this context. He, therefore, prays that for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition ought to be dismissed. The Court, therefore, should not entertain any plea of the writ petitioner in this context. He, therefore, prays that for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
