Back
quashes 163 vague charges against teachers, finds vindictiveness
In a significant ruling that reinforces the boundaries of a fair preliminary enquiry, the
has quashed the statements of allegations and notices issued against two teachers of
, finding that the 163 charges levelled against them were vague, stale, and patently harassive. Justice Jay Sengupta, presiding over the writ petitions, concluded that the entire exercise, viewed against the backdrop of earlier litigation and personal animosity with the college Principal,
"smacks of
and vindictiveness."
A History of Animosity
The dispute traces back to , when Dr. Badal Kumar Maity joined as Principal of . Soon after, a series of litigations erupted between the Principal and the teachers—Soma Mukhopadhyay and Anup Kumar Basu—who had earlier served as Teacher-in-Charge and members of the Governing Body. The Principal filed a writ petition in his personal capacity, a police complaint that ended in a final report discharging the teachers, and a protest petition. Meanwhile, the Principal himself faced disciplinary proceedings and suspension, which were later withdrawn after he rejoined in .
Against this fractious background, the college constituted a (PEC) in to investigate alleged irregularities by four teaching staff, including the petitioners. After an earlier set of notices was set aside by a coordinate Bench in for being too vague, the college reconstituted the PEC and issued fresh notices in , along with detailed statements of allegations—93 against Mukhopadhyay and 70 against Basu.
The Charges: Vague, Stale, and
The Court closely examined the substance of the allegations and found them deeply flawed. Many charges related to events decades old, with no specific dates mentioned. For instance, one charge against Mukhopadhyay alleged she left the college early on unspecified days between
and
.
"It would be absolutely ludicrous to seek an answer now about whether the petitioner actually left early two unspecified days in the year
at 1.50 pm and at 2.40 pm,"
the Court observed.
Another charge faulted the teacher for not signing attendance registers from —records that the authorities themselves were required to maintain. Similarly, an allegation that she attended the college during COVID-19 with "malicious intention" was deemed impossible to counter effectively.
The charges against Basu included unauthorised absence for unspecified dates across the 1990s and early 2000s, and bald allegations of exercising personal influence to obtain a UGC pay scale. The Court described these as
"as vague and speculative as can be."
Preliminary Enquiry Does Not Shield Abuse of Power
The respondents argued that a preliminary enquiry is merely a fact-finding exercise that does not prejudice the employee, and therefore should not be interfered with. Justice Sengupta acknowledged this settled principle but added a crucial caveat:
"However, there are certain underlying assumptions behind this proposition. Among others, the notices and / or the allegations have to be fair, proper, not harassive and issued
."
Given the history of litigation—including the earlier writ petition where the Principal was present in court when the first notices were set aside—the Court found that the subsequent proceedings were tainted by . The Principal had allegedly concluded the preliminary enquiry in undue haste just days after the writ petition was filed, despite being served with a copy of the petition.
The Court stressed that public office cannot be used to settle personal scores.
"When an individual assumes an office dealing with public duties, certain responsibilities come along with the powers that he exercises. If such person chooses to abuse such power in order to settle personal scores which impinges upon the fundamental rights of citizens of this country, this Court would be at liberty to intervene
."
Key Observations
The judgment includes several pointed observations:
-
"These are patently and cannot possibly be answered by any person after passage of such long period of time."
-
"No staff working for so long for a college should unnecessarily be made to answer these vague and trivial questions at the fag end of their careers."
-
"It appears that the allegations are exceedingly harassive, some vague, some and some absolutely stale and in view of the earlier litigations including the writ petitions and criminal case that had existed between the parties, the entire exercise smacks of and vindictiveness."
The Verdict
Holding that the impugned notices and statements of allegations did not conform to the standards of a fair and proper notice, Justice Sengupta quashed and set them aside. The Court made it clear that the patently harassive, vague, , and need not be answered by the petitioners, particularly at the fag end of their service careers.
The writ petitions were disposed of with these observations and directions, bringing an end to a prolonged and acrimonious chapter for the two teachers.
