ADVERTISEMENT
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chandi Charan Karan @ Chandi Karan vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 July, 2026
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
22.07.2026.
Court No. 13
Item No. 5.
pk
F. M. A. 1759 of 2025
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025
Chandi Charan Karan @ Chandi Karan
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabilal Maitra, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajitlal Maitra
... for the appellant.
Mr. Debopriyo Gupta, Ld. AGP
Mr. Barun Ghosh
Ms. Sumita Sarkar
Mr. Biswanath Banerjee
... for the State.
1. The appeal is directed against a judgment and
order dated 22nd September, 2025 passed by a Single
Bench of this Court. By the reason of the impugned
judgment the Single Bench declined the prayer of the
writ petitioner/appellant for release of full pension and
other terminal benefits.
2. The admitted facts before this Court are that the
writ petitioner/appellant was serving as an Assistant
Teacher at Nachipur Primary School. He was
subsequently promoted as head teacher on 14th July,
2025. During his tenure as head teacher, the writ
petitioner/appellant was implicated as an accused in
Lalgarh Police Station Case No. 04 of 2011 dated 7th
January, 2011 under Sections 148/149/326/307/302
of the IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
He was arrested and remained in custody for a
considerable period. In terms of the applicable Rules,
2
he was placed on suspension effect from 8th May,
2024. During the period of suspension, he was granted
50% of his salary as subsistence allowance, which was
later increased to 70% of his salary.
3. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings
and suspension from service the writ
petitioner/appellant reached the age of
superannuation on 28th February, 2022. He was still
in custody at the relevant point of time. He was
enlarged on bail later. The writ petitioner/appellant
was being paid interim allowance in terms of Rule
19(3) of the West Bengal Primary Education
Employees' (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules,
2009.
4. Learned senior counsel for the writ
petitioner/appellant claimed that the criminal
proceedings against him arose out of acts and
omissions outside the scope of employment. The
school and the State authorities, therefore, did not
initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him. He
should, therefore, be granted full pension and all
retirement benefits irrespective of the result of the
criminal proceedings.
5. It is alternatively argued by Mr. Maitra, learned
Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant that
even if the criminal proceedings will eventually result
in a conviction of the writ petitioner/appellant the acts
for which he would be convicted would still arise out of
3
the scope of employment. There are no allegations on
any misconduct against the petitioner in course of
employment. He should therefore not be penalized by
the State. The benefits of rendering seamless service to
the State as an Assistant Teacher and Head Teacher
cannot be denied to the writ petitioner/appellant.
6. In support of his contention, Mr. Maitra relied
upon a decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of
K.M.C. and Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Das reported in
2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4036 and a decision of
another coordinate Bench in the case of Amit Bisas
Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2007
(2) LLN 852 and the case of Surajit Roy Vs.
Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta and
Ors. in WP No.834 of 2013 dated 22nd July, 2014
passed by a Single Bench of this Court.
7. It is also argued by Mr. Maitra that even the
subsistence allowance and interim allowance post
superannuation was not paid in terms of the West
Bengal Primary Education Employees' (Death-cum-
Retirement Benefit) Rules, 2009.
8. Opposing the prayer of the writ
petitioner/appellant, learned counsel for the State Mr.
Gupta, learned Additional Government Pleader places
reliance on two decisions namely Sushil Kumar
Singhal Vs. Regional Manager Punjab National
Bank reported in (2010) 8 SCC 573 paragraph 23
onwards and a decision of coordinate dated 10th June,
4
2025 in WPST 8 of 2025 (Krishnadas Chatterjee
Vs. The State of West Bengal).
9. This Court has carefully heard the argument
advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the writ
petitioner/appellant as well as the State.
10. It is now well-settled that there should be a
comity and/or continuity of views between Benches
particularly Division Benches of the High Court. Apart
from the said principle, this Court is of the view that
the decision in Krishnadas Chatterjee (supra)
rendered by a coordinate Bench is in harmony with
the views of this Court.
11. Indeed it is true that the writ
petitioner/appellant superannuated from service
without any blemish in his service career. The
suspension of the petitioner is an ipso facto and/or
automatic consequence of being detained in custody
for more than 48 hours albeit in connection with
criminal case that arose in its entirety outside the
scope of the employment. There is no allegation of
misconduct or moral turpitude against the writ
petitioner/appellant made by the employer in any form
till date.
12. The entitlement of a claim for full pension would
essentially depend upon the gravity of the charges
labeled against the employee. While it is true that in
respect of grave charges as in the instant case against
5
the writ petitioner/appellant, he would be deemed to
be unfit to remain free in society, his liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India would stand
curtailed upon his conviction and sentencing. It is,
therefore, appropriate to hold that in the event of grave
charges even arising outside the scope of the
employment, a person unfit to remain free in the
society could ipso facto also become unfit to hold any
public employment. However, a different scenario may
emerge in respect of an employee convicted of minor
offences.
13. A debatable argument could be advanced by a
person accused or convicted of minor offences
essentially outside the scope of employment. The
entitlement of an employee under the State would also
depend on the nature of charges in criminal
proceedings outside the scope of employment.
14. In the event of misconduct committed in course
of employment, the employer would have the option of
either initiating the departmental proceedings against
such employee or await the result of the criminal trial
if the employee has been proceeding against by the
State under the applicable criminal law.
15. The definition of moral turpitude has been
explained sufficiently well in the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal (Supra)
from paragraph 23 onwards. The said case would,
however, not be applicable in the facts of the instant
6
case since the charge of criminal breach of trust under
which the appellant therein was convicted under
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code arose in course
of employment.
16. In the said case, the employee who was asked to
deposit Rs. 5,000/- with a local post office towards the
telephone bill of the branch of the bank
misappropriated the same.
17. The decision of this Court in the case of
Krishnadas Chatterjee (Supra) would have
application in the facts of the case since the criminal
proceedings against the employee concerned arose
outside the scope of employment and not in discharge
of official duties.
18. This Court is in agreement with the views of the
Single Bench to the extent of non-application of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip
Kumar Das (Supra).
19. Having regard to the discussion made
hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner/appellant is entitled to provisional pension
and/or compensatory allowance that he is already
receiving. He would however, be entitled to gratuity
and other allowance including GPF and leave
encashment which admittedly has not been paid by
the employer till date.
7
20. It is therefore, ordered that the
petitioner/appellant shall be paid leave encashment
and gratuity which has not been paid till date by the
employer with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
and from 28.02.2022 till date of actual payment. The
petitioner/appellant would continue to receive the
interim pension in terms of the West Bengal Primary
Education Employees' (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit)
Rules, 2009.
21. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta, learned Additional
Government Pleader for the State-respondents that the
difference between the amounts actually payable to the
petitioner and the sums paid has been calculated and
SPONSORED
made over to him. He has placed instructions of the
District Inspector of Schools (PE), Jhargram dated
30.01.2026 in this regard.
22. Since it is alleged by the petitioner/appellant
that he is yet to receive such difference, the District
Inspector of Schools (PE), Jhargram shall revisit the
sums actually paid to the petitioner/appellant towards
interim pension and the sums the petitioner is entitled
to as per rules. Let any difference in the entitlement of
the petitioner/appellant be made over to him as
expeditiously as possible but not later than one month
from date. For the aforesaid purpose, the
petitioner/appellant shall be entitled to make a
representation to the District Inspector of Schools (PE),
Jhargram in this regard.
8
23. Needless to mention that in the event of
conviction and criminal proceedings, all entitlement of
the petitioner/appellant shall be reviewed by the
District Inspector of Schools (PE), Jhargram.
24. If the appellant is acquitted in the criminal
proceedings, he shall be entitled to the difference of
the subsistence allowance paid and full salary and
also the difference between the interim pension and
full pension.
25. The result of the criminal proceedings will
determine the entitlement of the petitioner/appellant
as well as the State in accordance with law.
26. With the aforesaid observations, FMA 1759 of
2025 is disposed of. Consequently connected pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.
28. All parties shall act on the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
