28th August, 2025 (D/L No.302-305)

Ct. No.4 (SKB)

W.P.S.T.112 of 2024 State of West Bengal and others Versus Maharam Sk.

With W.P.S.T.113 of 2024 State of West Bengal and others Versus Krishna Gore With W.P.S.T.114 of 2024 State of West Bengal and others Versus Tapas Bala With W.P.S.T.115 of 2024 State of West Bengal and others Versus Naresh Sarkar Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Mr. Subhendu Sengupta ….for the petitioners.

Ms. Ashmita Chakraborty, Ms. Poushali Das …for the respondent.

1. In all these cases the applicants before the Tribunal are constables/ members of a raiding party, which conducted raid for recovery of illicit possession of narcotic drugs in connection with NDPS Case No. 136 of 2017. It is alleged that there was misappropriation of seized narcotic drugs. The applicants were alleged to have misappropriated the missing quantity of the seized contraband drugs.

2. Applicants were served with identical Memorandum of Charges dated 23.09.2022 in this regard. The charge memo was served just a week prior to acquittal being recorded by the Trial Court on 30.09.2022, in the criminal trial regarding the self-same allegations arising out of NDPS Case No. 136 of 2017.

3. The applicants therefore, challenged the continuation of the departmental proceedings on the basis of the Memo of Charges dated 23.09.2022 by filing separate Original Applications. The facts constituting the cause of action giving rise to filing of the OA (s) were common in all the OAs. The charge memos were quashed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (SAT for short).

4. The State has put to challenge the order/s passed by the SAT in the OAs by filing separate writ petitions. The writ petitioner/ State is represented by a common advocate in the writ petitions arising out of a common cause of action, arising out of identical facts in respect of the same incident. The learned Advocate for the State submitted that he will be making submissions which are common to all the writ petitions.

5. The applicants also are represented by a common learned Advocate. The learned Advocate for the applicant/s/ respondent/s submitted that she would also be advancing submissions which are common to all the writ petitions.

6. We find that the memo of charges forming the subject matter of the writ petitions are not only of the same date, but the articles of charges are also verbatim. We, therefore, proceeded to consider the submissions advanced on behalf of the State/ writ petitioners, as well as the applicants which are common in all the writ petitions, with a view to disposal of the four writ petitions by a common judgment.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as the learned advocate representing the respondent. The respondent/s, excise constable/s, were served with an identical memorandum of charges dated 23.09.2022 for conducting a disciplinary proceeding under the West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1972, (in short „Rules‟). Therefore, the article of charge contained in the charge memo of one of the applicants is being noted, which alleges as follows:

“That the said Maharam Sk. Excise Constable (now under suspension) was consciously present in the raid and played a conscious role in collusion with others in the matter of illicit possession, transportation and disposal of commercial quantity of narcotics drugs in the wake of recovery of ganja from the possession of the accused in connection with the NDPS case No.136/2017 dated 06/09/2017 and was deliberately associated with this unlawful misreporting act, subsequently unduly siphoning off the articles and that such an act was completely unbecoming of a public servant.”

8. The statement of imputations in support of such article of charge is also useful to reproduce having regard to the case made out by the applicant/respondent before the SAT and the same reads:

“Statement of imputations in support of the article of charge framed against Maharm Sk.

Excise Constable (Now under suspensi