Calcutta High Court
Employment and Labour LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

A disciplinary charge memorandum omitting witness and document lists is curable by corrigendum.

ANIRUDDHA THAKUR vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Calcutta High CourtJUDGMENT: August 18, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A disciplinary charge memorandum omitting witness and document lists is curable by corrigendum.. ANIRUDDHA THAKUR vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.. Calcutta High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged the memorandum dated 18 May 2026 issued by the Chairman of Murshidabad Municipality initiating disciplinary proceedings against him on charges concerning illegal entries of LED lights and fittings worth ₹6,32,80,396 in the Stock Register, misuse of the Store-in-Charge’s seal, and involvement in an alleged financial scam.

Source reference: para. 2; para. 6

The memorandum specified the charges but did not contain the list of witnesses or the list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority.

Source reference: para. 3; para. 7

Earlier, the petitioner had challenged his suspension dated 26 December 2024 and an earlier disciplinary notice dated 27 November 2025 in WPA 28832 of 2025. The earlier proceeding was set aside because it had been initiated by the Executive Officer, who was not the competent disciplinary authority under Rule 6 of the West Bengal Municipal Employees’ (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2010; liberty was granted to the municipality to initiate fresh proceedings.

Source reference: para. 4; para. 5

Pursuant to that liberty, the Chairman, stated to be the competent disciplinary authority, issued the memorandum dated 18 May 2026. During the present proceedings, the Administrator of the Municipality sought leave to file a corrigendum or addendum supplying the missing list of witnesses and documents.

Source reference: para. 8
02

Issues

Whether the disciplinary memorandum dated 18 May 2026 was legally defective because it did not contain the list of witnesses and the list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority.

Source reference: para. 3; para. 7

Whether the defect in the memorandum was incurable and required quashing of the disciplinary proceedings, or could be remedied by permitting a corrigendum or addendum.

Source reference: paras. 8–10

Whether the disciplinary enquiry could proceed after supplying the missing materials, subject to the petitioner’s opportunity to submit a statement of defence and observance of natural justice.

Source reference: para. 11
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Rule 6 of the West Bengal Municipal Employees’ (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2010, under which disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the competent disciplinary authority; the earlier notice issued by the Executive Officer was therefore invalid.

Source reference: para. 4; para. 5

It also relied on Rule 4(3) of the Rules, which entitles a suspended employee to subsistence allowance.

Source reference: para. 4

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, requiring the employee to receive the relevant materials, including the list of witnesses and documents relied upon, and to be given an opportunity to submit a defence before the enquiry proceeds.

Source reference: paras. 9–11
04

Reasoning

The Court found that the memorandum issued by the Chairman, unlike the earlier notice, had been issued by the competent disciplinary authority and therefore was not invalid on that ground.

Source reference: para. 6

However, it was defective because it identified the charges without supplying the list of witnesses and documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority.

Source reference: paras. 3, 7, 9

The Court considered the defect procedural rather than incurable. Since the Administrator explained that the municipal Board had been dissolved and additional time was required to compile and serve the relevant materials, the Court permitted the defect to be corrected through a corrigendum or addendum rather than terminating the disciplinary proceedings.

Source reference: para. 8; para. 9

The Court protected the petitioner’s procedural rights by directing that, after receipt of the additional materials, he must be allowed to file a statement of defence and that the enquiry must thereafter proceed in accordance with the Rules and the principles of natural justice.

Source reference: para. 10; para. 11
05

Holding

The Court held that the memorandum dated 18 May 2026 was defective for want of the list of witnesses and documents, but that the defect was curable and did not warrant quashing the disciplinary proceedings.

The Administrator was granted seven working days from receipt of the server copy of the order to issue and serve a corrigendum or addendum containing the missing materials.

Source reference: para. 10

The petitioner was permitted to submit a statement of defence thereafter, and the enquiry was allowed to continue in accordance with the 2010 Rules and the principles of natural justice.

Source reference: para. 11

The petitioner was also held entitled to subsistence allowance under the Rules. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without further relief.

Source reference: para. 11; para. 12
Calcutta High Court

Original Court PDF

ANIRUDDHA THAKURvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Calcutta High Court · August 18, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment