Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 28/08/2026 (Judgment delivered; judgment reserved on 05/08/2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant — Sri Rajesh Banerjee (former Head Assistant, IFU, SWM‑I, Br‑VIII) vs. Respondents — Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and associated officials.
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal dated 10 June 2015 and appellate confirmation dated 24 July 2018.
  • Background: Banerjee was implicated in alleged misappropriation of municipal funds amounting to Rs 11,84,008. He executed a written confession on non‑judicial stamp paper (dated 14 May 2015) admitting generation of fake bills and deposit of part of the amount (Rs 3 lakh) with a treasury receipt dated 27 May 2015, seeking permission to withdraw Rs 2 lakh from his PF and to deposit the balance within two months.
  • Preliminary enquiry: Constituted on 19 May 2015 by an Enquiry Committee (Joint Municipal Commissioner (Rev) as Chairman, Controller of Municipal Finance and Accounts, Chief Manager (Personnel), Director General (SWM)). The Committee, a fact‑finding body, recorded Banerjee’s confession and recommended dismissal without a formal disciplinary enquiry.
  • Disciplinary action: On 10 June 2015, the Joint Municipal Commissioner (P) dismissed Banerjee, citing his admission and deeming the conduct unbecoming of a civic employee. Banerjee appealed on 22 July 2015 under Service Rules.
  • Subsequent litigation: Banerjee filed writ petition (W.P. No. 22940(W) of 2016). The Single Judge directed the appellate authority to communicate the appeal result within six weeks (order dated 13 June 2018). The appellate authority upheld dismissal on 24 July 2018.
  • Grounds of challenge: Banerjee contended that the disciplinary authority failed to issue a charge‑sheet, deny him a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges, and ignored mandatory consultation with the Vigilance Authority as per KMC’s own Circular 6 (1979‑80) and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Powers and Functions of the Vigilance Authority) Rules, 1994.
  • Legal submissions: Counsel for Banerjee argued that the preliminary enquiry was merely fact‑finding and could not substitute a regular departmental enquiry; cited precedents (Cherukuri Mani, Jagdish Prasad Saxena, R. Reddappa, Roop Singh Negi, etc.) emphasizing the need for a charge‑sheet and opportunity of hearing under Article 311(2).
  • KMC’s position: Asserted that Banerjee’s confession and full repayment rendered further enquiry unnecessary; claimed no vigilance investigation was required.
  • Court’s analysis: Determined that the preliminary enquiry, though fact‑finding, does not possess the authority to impose a major penalty. The dismissal was effected without a charge‑sheet, without framing of specific articles of charge, without service of notice, and without granting Banerjee a chance to rebut the allegations—constituting a breach of natural‑justice principles and service regulations (Rule 50 of KMC Service Regulations). The court also noted the failure to refer the matter to the Vigilance Authority contrary to Circular 6 (1979‑80) and Rules 1994.
  • The court held that reliance on the confession alone, without a regular disciplinary proceeding, is legally infirm. The procedural deficiencies rendered the dismissal order “bad in law” and therefore void.

Final Outcome

  • The order of dismissal dated 10 June 2015 and the appellate confirmation dated 24 July 2018 are set aside.
  • Banerjee is to be reinstated to his previous post within one week from the date of this judgment and will be treated as a regular employee.
  • The employer may, if it wishes, suspend Banerjee pending a fresh disciplinary proceeding, subject to payment of subsistence allowance as per service rules.
  • The disciplinary authority must issue a charge‑sheet within two weeks of reinstatement; Banerjee must file his written version within 15 days of receipt of the charge‑sheet, and the disciplinary proceeding must be concluded expeditiously.
  • No determination on back wages was made; the matter will be decided in the forthcoming disciplinary proceeding.
  • The stay application filed by KMC was rejected.
  • The appeal and the connected application are disposed of; parties shall act on the server copy of the order.

Topics: Administrative Law, Municipal Service Discipline