2006 Supreme(Cal) 749
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
MAHARAJ SINHA
Dilip Kumar Chakraborty
Versus
State of West Bengal
Decided On : 30-11-2006
For the Appearing Parties:Mitali Bhattacharya, Arunava Banerjee, Sumit Pauja, Advocates.
(1). WAY back in the year 1973, to be precise on 6th June, 1973, the writ petitioner first joined the West Bengal State Electricity Board (Board in short)in its Kharagpur Branch, as an assistant and since then had been posted as "assistant" in different places. Eventually, the petitioner became a permanent employee of the Board and continued to serve as an assistant as before. The case of the petitioner is that he became a victim of acute depression and as such was unable to work and to attend his office since 12th October 1992 till 13th August, 1997. For this long period he had to undergo treatment and the case of his mental depression and consequent disability on his part to attend his office was duly certified by the Doctor who treated him, namely, one Dr. S. Chakraborty who the petitioner has described in paragraph 2 of the petition as "mental heart specialist". For the sake of convenience the text of the certificate issued by Dr. Chakraborty is set out below: "certified that Sri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty attached to Kamarpukur Group of Electric Supply W. B. S. E. B. , resident of Vill.- Malancha, P. O.-Rakhajungle, p. S.- Kharagpur, Dist. Midnapore (Paschim) was under my treatment from 12. 10. 1992 to 23. 8. 1997 and was suffering from mental depression. He is now cured and fit to resume his duties, but his disease may relapse if he is given hard and laborious duty. His proper treatment and care is needed for which his service may be utilised near about his residence. "
(2). DURING the illness of the petitioner the wife of the petitioner first wrote to the Station Superintendent of the Board, at Kamarpukur, in the district of hooghly on 16 February, 1993 that her husband Dilip Kr. Chakraborty was not behaving with her and her two daughters in a normal way. She consulted with a Doctor in this connection who intimated that her husband not physically fit and mentally alert to perform any official duty. Her husband was not, therefore, in a position to join the office due to his mental disability. On the above basis the wife requested the Station Superintendent "to take a considered view in this regard" till her husbands recovery.
(3). THE wife wrote yet another letter to the Divisional Engineer, Serampore, in the district of Hooghly on 1st June, 1993 where the wife of the petitioner again said that her husband was suffering from mental depression since 12th October, 1992. The husband was advised by the Doctor to take rest and not to attend the office, then she wrote as follows: "in the present situation I am hardly managing my family with great difficulties and counting days of sorrow and despair of my life. I, therefore, earnestly pray to your Lordship that you will be kind enough to make necessary arrangements to offer medical assistance for my ailing husband. Yours faithfully, [krishna Chakraborty]"
(4). BOTH the above letters are annexed to the writ petition and appearing respectively at pages 19 and 20 thereof. I, on my part, have no hesitation to hold that these two letters were, in fact, duly received by the Board or rather by the officers of the Board concerned and the Board or rather the concerned respondents herein, have not denied the receipt of the above two letters hi due course in their affidavit-in-opposition either. However, on 20th November, 1995, the Board the service of the writ petitioner with effect from 12th October, 1994. The text of the under of termination for the sake of convenience and proper appreciation of the merits of the petitioners case is set out below: "office Order No. C/ir/nt/148 Dated: 20/11/1995 the services of Shri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty, Assistant, last attached to kamarpukur Group Electric Supply under Serampore (Dist.) Division, WBSEB, are hereby terminated w. e. f. 12. 10. 94 (F. N.), consequent upon his continuous absence from duty exceeding the prescribed maximum limit, of 2 (two) years since 12. 10. 92 (F. N.) in terms of regulation 33-1 (iii) of the W. B. S. E. B. Em