The Syndicate has the inherent power to initiate disciplinary proceedings and suspend a professor in the absence of any Ordinance or Statute, and misconduct is a broad term covering various forms of wrongful behavior, not limited to specific acts listed in standing orders.

Probodh Kumar Bhowmick filed a writ application on the Original Side of this Court questioning the order of suspension dated 8.7.94, being Annexure 'I' to the writ petition, as also a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

2. Dilara Begum, the petitioner in her application filed on the Appellate Side of this Court, had, inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the respondents to produce her answer scripts in connection with her Part-II M. Sc. Examination in Anthropology for their re-examination as also for a direction upon Sri P. K. Bhowmick, Atul Bhowmick, Smt. Ranjana Roy, Sri Goutam Sarkar to pay compensation to her.

3. The short facts, leading to the applications, are as follows :

"The petitioner, Probodh Kumar Bhowmick (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner' has been a Professor of Anthropology of the Calcutta University from 1976. He is to superannuate on 30th September, 1994. On 20th May, 1994 he received a notice issued by the Advocate on Record of Dilara Begum enclosing therewith a copy of the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On 31st May, 1994, the Secretary, West Bengal Legislative Assembly asked the petitioner to submit an explanation in writing relating to an alleged scurrilous remark made by him against one Dr. Motahar Hossain, M.L.A., father of Dilara Begum and also in respect of an alleged exercise of unlawful influence by the petitioner on Atul Bhowmick in respect of Anthropology Part-II Papers of the said Dilara Begum in relation to examination held in 1993. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that he had not issued any such letter. No action thereafter appears to have been taken against the petitioner in the matter. On or about 3rd June, 1991 the University of Calcutta, however, constituted a Committee. Allegedly, the petitioner did not receive any notice in relation thereto but on 6.6.94 one Professor A. B. Banerjee, Dean of Faculty of Science, Calcutta University, requested the petitioner to appear before it and pursuant thereto the petitioner appeared before the Committee. He allegedly was furnished with a typed question, which was answered by him. The petitioner denied that he was the author of the letter in question but stated that the signature appearing therein seemed to be his. According to the petitioner he used to leave signed blank letter-heads with others and one of such blank signed letter-heads might have been used therefor. The Committee held its meeting on 10.6.94, 15.6.94, 20.6.94 and 23.6.94 on which dates the deposition of other witnesses were taken. The said Committee submitted a report on or about 8.7.94. The petitioner received an order of suspension as well as a letter intimating that a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him wherewith the charge-sheet and several documents including the report of the Committee was enclosed.

4. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has principally raised two contentions in support of this application. The Learned Counsel, firstly, took me through the said report dated 8.7.1994 and submitted that the impugned orders being based on the findings of the Enquiry Committee are perverse. The Learned Counsel also submitted that no prima facie case warranting disciplinary action as against the petitioner has been found by the said Committee and in that view of the matter the order of suspension must be held to be illegal. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Syndicate has no power to suspend or initiate any disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner in view of the fact that no Ordinance or Statute bas been made by the Calcutta University in terms of Section 22(x) of the Calcutta University Act, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). According to the Learned Counsel as misconduct in relation to the teachers has not been defined, the proceeding initiated against him must be held to be without and or in