Authority: Calcutta High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 08 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Bijoy Kumar Moni vs. State of West Bengal, Raghunathpur Municipality, and others.
  • Appeal Details: FMA 1118 of 2024 with CAN 1 of 2023, arising from an order dated 17 October 2023 in WPA No. 22565 of 2023.
  • Background of Employment: The appellant was initially engaged as a temporary technical supervisor in 1996 (Rs 80 per day), left in September 1996, re‑engaged as Technical Assistant on a temporary basis from May 2009 with Rs 10,000 per month, and later claimed the post of Assistant Engineer from 30 October 2009 without an approved vacancy.
  • Legal History:
  • Division Bench order (19 June 2015) directed permanent absorption as Sub‑Assistant Engineer; Supreme Court stayed this order on 24 July 2015, restraining removal and filling of the post.
  • Multiple writ petitions filed: WPA 20872 of 2023 (challenging the first suspension order of 11 August 2023) and WPA 22565 of 2023 (challenging the second suspension order of 4 September 2023).
  • Show‑cause notice issued on 4 August 2023 alleging impersonation, misappropriation of solid‑waste funds, and inflation of beneficiary numbers; appellant replied on 8 August 2023.
  • First suspension order dated 11 August 2023 was kept in abeyance by the Single Judge, directing consideration of the reply before any further suspension.
  • A fresh suspension order dated 4 September 2023 was subsequently issued with the same allegations.
  • Inter‑locutor application (I.A. 169152 of 2023) filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 31 October 2023.
  • Municipality’s Position: Asserted the right to suspend even a casual employee, claimed the appellant misused the Assistant Engineer designation, caused financial loss in the solid‑waste project, and that the suspension was a prima facie observation, not a final guilt finding.
  • Court Observations: The suspension is prima facie, not a conclusive determination of misconduct; the matter of subsistence allowance was not before the writ petition; the Supreme Court remains the proper forum for the pending regularisation issue; the appellant did not approach either court with clean hands.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal and the connected application are dismissed.
  • Costs of Rs 5,000 are imposed on the appellant, to be paid to the municipality within two weeks and to be utilised for stray‑dog rehabilitation.
  • No order is made on the subsistence allowance or the permanent status of the appellant; those matters remain with the pending Supreme Court proceedings.
  • The court directed that urgent photostat certified copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties upon fulfillment of formalities.

Topics: Court Decision, Municipal Employment Dispute