Form No. J.(2)

Item No. 10 Court No. 236 PG IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 21.03.2025, 06.02.2026 & 18.02.2026 DELIVERED ON: 18.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN WPA 444 of 2017 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 8127 of 2019)

Sri Pinaki Dutta Versus Eastern and North EAST Frontier Railway Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors.

Appearance:-

Mr. Yashraj Roy ……..for the petitioner Mr. Ayan Banerjee Ms. Debasree Dhamali Ms. Riya Ghosh Ms. Deblina Ghosh ………for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 JUDGEMENT (ORAL):

PER, PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:-

1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities, commanding them to set aside and/or quash and/or rescind the charge sheet dated 29.09.2014, the order of impugned judgment dated 27.08.2015 and the order of the appellate authority dated 17.10.2016.

2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate, duly assisted by Ms.

Dhamali, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents raises the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition and urged before this Court that the maintainability point, as raised by them may be decided first.

3. As agreed, the instant writ petition is taken up for hearing on the point of maintainability.

4. At the time of argument, Mr. Banerjee, at very outset, draws attention of this Court to the writ petition, as filed by the writ petitioner. It is submitted that from the prayer portion of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the writ petitioner is aggrieved with the order of punishment dated 27.08.2015, as has been passed by the disciplinary authority and as has been affirmed by the appellate authority.

5. Drawing attention to the cause title of the writ petition, it is argued by Mr.

Banerjee that since it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is an employee under the respondent no.1/cooperative society bank, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the respondent no.1/cooperative society bank is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, on this score alone, the instant writ petition may be held to be not maintainable.

6. It is argued by Mr. Banerjee that a similar question arose before a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. 6161(W) of 2016 (Sri Saptarshi Basu vs. Union of India & Ors.). It is submitted that by an order dated 19.04.2016, the said coordinate Bench considering the every pros and cons of the matter, as involved in the said writ petition, came to a finding that the said writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent/co-operative society, which is the main respondent in the instant writ petition.

7. In course of his submission, Mr. Banerjee also places reliance upon the judgment, as passed in the case of S.S. Rana vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies & Anr. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 634 and Thalappalam SER. Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Kerala reported in 2014(1) CHN (SC) 44.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent/co-operative society bank that from the materials, as placed before this Court, it would reveal that the respondent/cooperative society bank is not a creature of a statute and on the contrary, the said co-operative society bank was constituted by the active participation of the railway employees in terms of the provisions of the Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 39 of 2002’ for short).

9. It is further contended by Mr. Banerjee that sufficient materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate that over the respondent/cooperative society bank, there was neither direct nor indirect control of the railway authority and thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the function and affairs of the society is akin to public function, as has been discharged by an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Co