The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the decision of the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (WBSIDCL) Board of Directors to recall an appellate order that had revoked a penalty imposed on an employee. The Court held that the initial appellate order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. Consequently, the Court also upheld the decision to keep the employee’s promotion in abeyance pending the fresh hearing of the statutory appeal.
Case Background
The petitioner, Debanjan Guha, an Assistant Manager-II at WBSIDCL, faced disciplinary proceedings in 2017 following a complaint by a contractual employee alleging threats and the use of abusive language against higher officials. On March 31, 2018, the Disciplinary Authority (Managing Director) imposed a penalty reducing the petitioner’s pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect.
The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Regulation 50 of the WBSIDCL (Staff Regulations). On July 13, 2020, the Executive Director-I, with the concurrence of the Chairman and Managing Director, issued an order allowing the appeal and revoking the penalty. This order was implemented, and the petitioner’s pay was restored.
However, in 2022, during a promotion process where the petitioner secured the top position in the merit list for the post of Assistant Manager-I, the Board of Directors discovered a procedural irregularity. In its 362nd meeting, the Board was informed that the Executive Director had no authority to dispose of the appeal. Consequently, the Board resolved to recall the revocation order and appointed a retired Judge to hear the appeal afresh. Following this, the Selection Committee deferred the petitioner’s promotion.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Indranil Roy, argued that the appellate order dated July 13, 2020, had attained finality and was fully implemented. He contended that the Staff Regulations contain no provision for review or revision of an appellate order. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mawasi, he argued that a quasi-judicial or administrative authority cannot review its own order absent an express statutory provision. The petitioner alleged that the reopening of the case was mala fide, intended to deny him promotion despite his merit position.
The respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. N. C. Behuni, argued that under Regulation 50(iii), appeals must be heard by the authority prescribed by the Board. In a 1985 meeting, the Board had resolved that the Board of Directors itself would act as the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Executive Director lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, rendering his order void ab initio. The respondents submitted that a jurisdictional error can be corrected at any stage and that the Board had the right to rectify a bona fide mistake.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed that the pivotal issue was whether the Board was justified in recalling the Executive Director’s order and directing a fresh hearing.
The Court referred to Regulation 50(iii) and the Board’s resolution from 1985, which mandated that the Board of Directors act as the Appellate Authority. The Court noted that the Executive Director had “no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal.”
Citing the principle laid down in Taylor v. Taylor and Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, the Court reiterated that “where a power is conferred by a statute… to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that manner or not at all.”
Justice Chatterjee held that the order dated July 13, 2020, was a nullity. The Court distinguished between the power of review and the power to recall an order passed without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, with the Court observing:
“Admittedly, while an authority generally cannot review its own order in the absence of a specific statutory provision, it does possess the power to recall an order which is a nullity on account of lack of jurisdiction.”
Addressing the petitioner’s argument on estoppel, the Court stated:
“An action taken by an authority lacking jurisdiction is not binding upon the State… and consequently, the State… cannot be said to be estopped from recalling such order.”
The Court concluded that since the revocation order was void, all subsequent benefits flowing from it were unsustainable. Therefore, the Board did not misdirect itself in recalling the order.
Regarding the promotion, the Court held:
“Since the statutory appeal, which is a continuation of the disciplinary proceeding, is pending consideration, the decision… to keep the petitioner’s promotion in abeyance… cannot be faulted.”
Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, validating the Board’s decision to rehear the appeal and the Selection Committee’s decision to withhold the promotion. A subsequent prayer by the petitioner for a stay of the judgment was also rejected.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Debanjan Guha v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
- Case No.: WPA 21881 of 2022
- Coram: Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Indranil Roy, Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy, Ms. Susmita Mondal
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. N. C. Behuni (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay, Ms. Rimi Chatterjee
