Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sunil Kumar Mandi vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 March, 2026
23.03.2026
Sl. No.37
Ct. No.14
gd
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 1655 of 2025
Sunil Kumar Mandi
versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta,
Mr. Arun Kumar Das
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Sr. Govt. Adv.
Mr. Subhabrata Das
...for the State.
Mr. Ranjan Saha
...for the DPSC, Paschim Medinipur.
1. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks for
setting aside and/or quashing of the order of
suspension dated 19th September, 2023 issued by the
Chairman-in-Charge, District Primary School Council,
Paschim Medinipur suspending the petitioner with
effect from 1st August, 2023 as per Rule 7(2) of West
Bengal Primary Education (Conduct of Service of
Teachers of Primary School) Rules, 2001.
2. The petitioner contends that he joined as an Assistant
Teacher of Washil Chak Primary School at
Lakshmanchak under Khedgree Circle, Purba
Medinipur on 2nd November, 2012. The petitioner was
confirmed in the said post with effect from 2 nd
November, 2014. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner
was transferred to Ambigeria Primary School, Paschim
2
Medinipur on 6th October, 2020. On 31st July 2023 a
criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner
which was registered as Kharagpur Local Police Station
Case No.621 of 2023 dated 31st July 2023 (G.R. Case
No.2301 of 2023) under Sections 376(2)(f)(n)/417/506
of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). The petitioner
was arrested on 4th August, 2023. The petitioner was
put under suspension with effect from 1st August,
2023. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on 26 th
September, 2023. Upon completion of investigation
charge-sheet was submitted on 4 th September, 2023
under Sections 376(2)(f)(n)/417/506 of IPC. The
aforesaid criminal case has been committed to the
Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast
Track, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur for trial and
disposal. The said criminal case is still pending. There
are no such disciplinary proceedings initiated against
the petitioner after his suspension. On 11 th December,
2023 the petitioner made a representation before the
Chairman, District Primary School Council, Paschim
Medinipur for withdrawal and/or revocation of the
impugned order of suspension followed by a
representation on 18th December, 2024. However, no
decision has yet been taken by the authority concerned
on the representation of the petitioner. Being aggrieved
by the action of the respondent authorities, the
petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
3
3. Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta, learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that it is settled proposition of law
that suspension cannot be continued for an indefinite
period. There are no such disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the petitioner upon such suspension.
Pendency of a criminal case cannot be an embargo for
reinstatement of the petitioner in his service upon
withdrawal of the order of suspension. To buttress his
contention, he relies on the following decisions:
a) State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department versus Bimal Kumar Mohanty
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court;
b) Ajay Kumar Choudhary versus Union of India
through its Secretary and Another reported in
(2015) 7 SCC 291 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court;
c) Sandipta Gangopadhyay versus Allahabad
Bank & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC Online Cal
5553 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court; and
d) Swarup Chandra Bisui versus State of West
Bengal & Ors. (Re: WPA 8304 of 2022) of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court.
He seeks for appropriate orders for revocation and/or
withdrawal of the order of suspension.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Ranjan Saha, learned advocate
for District Primary School Council, Paschim
Medinipur submits that the petitioner is the Teacher-
in-charge of the school and allegation against the
4
petitioner is of commission of rape upon a midday
meal worker of the said school, which is a serious
offence. On the basis of prima facie material, the
investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet
against the petitioner. Moreover, in the cited decisions
no criminal offence of rape is involved. Hence, the
prayer for withdrawal should be dismissed in limine. In
support of his contention, he relies on a decision of
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gopi Nath Saren
versus State of West Bengal & Ors. (Re: WPA 2068
of 2022).
5. Upon hearing the learned advocates for respective
parties, the only issue which falls for consideration is
whether the impugned suspension order is sustainable
or not.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was put under suspension
upon initiation of a criminal case under Sections
376(2)(f)(n)/417/506 of IPC. On completion of
investigation and on the basis of prima facie materials,
charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner
under the aforementioned offence. The said criminal
case is pending before the learned trial court. Be that
as it may, one cannot be oblivious to the fact that the
petitioner being the Teacher-in-Charge of an
educational institution is alleged to have been involved
in the offence of rape upon a member of Swasahayak
team, who works for cooking midday meal in the said
school. An educational institution is an establishment
5
that provide education to the learners and are designed
to impart knowledge, skills, values and cultural norms
to individuals in a structured manner. The petitioner
being the Teacher-in-charge has a moral and ethical
duty to carry forward such purpose of educational
institution. There cannot be any manner of doubt that
the allegations of commission of rape is a grievous one
and has a direct bearing on the moral turpitude of the
petitioner and therefore should not viewed lightly. In
the opinion of this court allowing the petitioner,
allegedly involved in such offence, to resume his duties
in the said school upon withdrawal of the suspension
order would have a repulsive impact on the
environment of the said school where education is
offered and imparted to the children of tender age.
7. The decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner does not
relate to commission of offence of rape by a delinquent
and as such those are distinguishable from the case at
hand.
8. In light of the above discussion, the writ petition falls
short of merit.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 1655 of 2025
stands dismissed.
10. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation
made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted.
11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
12. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
6
14. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of
the order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied
for, be given to the parties on compliance of all
necessary legal formalities.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
