The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a senior officer of the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (WBSIDCL), holding that the corporation’s Board of Directors was legally justified in recalling an earlier appellate order that lacked jurisdiction and in keeping the officer’s promotion on hold.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee on January 15, 2026, after detailed hearings on service law, disciplinary rules, and the limits of administrative power .
Background of the Case
The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2017 against Debanjan Guha, then working as Assistant Manager-II at WBSIDCL. Following a complaint by a contractual employee, the corporation conducted an enquiry and imposed a penalty in March 2018, reducing Guha’s pay by two stages for two years.
Read also:- Gadag Murder Case: Supreme Court Reverses High Court, Orders Release of Accused
Guha challenged the punishment through a statutory appeal. In July 2020, an Executive Director of the corporation issued an order revoking the penalty, restoring Guha’s pay and service benefits. That decision was implemented and remained in force for nearly two years.
Trouble resurfaced in 2022, when WBSIDCL began a promotion process for the post of Assistant Manager-I. Guha topped the merit list. However, the Board of Directors, in its 362nd meeting, questioned the legality of the 2020 appellate order after receiving a legal opinion that the appeal had been decided by an authority with no jurisdiction.
The Board resolved to recall the order and directed a fresh hearing of the appeal by a retired judge. As a result, Guha’s promotion was kept in abeyance, while the next candidate on the list was promoted.
Petitioner’s Stand
Guha approached the High Court arguing that the 2020 appellate order had attained finality and could not be reopened after such a long delay. He contended that the Staff Regulations did not permit any review or recall of a concluded appeal and that withholding his promotion despite his top rank was arbitrary and discriminatory.
His counsel stressed that the corporation, having implemented the appellate order and restored benefits, was estopped from questioning it later. The petitioner also alleged mala fide intent behind reopening the matter just when his promotion was due.
Respondents’ Defence
The corporation countered that under its Staff Regulations, only the Board of Directors was competent to act as the appellate authority. Since the Executive Director had no such power, the 2020 order revoking the penalty was void from the outset.
The respondents argued that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be recalled at any stage. They maintained that the Board acted in good faith to correct a serious legal error and that keeping the promotion in abeyance was necessary while the statutory appeal, which is a continuation of the disciplinary process, remained pending.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Against Service Tax on Speaker Fees, Clears HT Media in Event Management Dispute
Court’s Observations
After examining the Staff Regulations and past resolutions of the Board, the court found that the Board itself had been designated as the appellate authority as far back as 1985. Justice Chatterjee noted that the Executive Director’s act of deciding the appeal was contrary to this mandate.
“The statutory appeal was neither heard nor disposed of by the authority prescribed by the Board of Directors,” the court observed, holding that the 2020 order was “a nullity and void ab initio” because it was passed without jurisdiction.
Read also;- Supreme Court Clears Speaker's Move in Judge Removal Process, Upholds Inquiry Committee Formation
The court drew a clear distinction between the power of review and the power of recall. While authorities generally cannot review their own decisions without express statutory backing, the judge held that an order passed without jurisdiction can always be recalled to prevent injustice.
Decision
Upholding the Board’s actions, the High Court ruled that recalling the invalid appellate order and directing a fresh hearing was legally sound. It also held that the decision to keep Guha’s promotion in abeyance could not be faulted while the statutory appeal was pending.
For these reasons, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The court also refused to stay the operation of its judgment, bringing the matter to a close .
Case Title:- Debanjan Guha vs State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number:- WPA 21881 of 2022
Date of Judgment:- 15 January 2026
Counsel for Petitioner:
- Mr. Indranil Roy
- Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy
- Ms. Susmita Mondal
Counsel for Respondents:
- Mr. N. C. Behuni, Senior Advocate
- Mr. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay
- Ms. Rimi Chatterjee
