Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
Dr. Surajit Chandra Mukhopadhyay - Appellant
Vs.
The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 12652 (W) of 2016
Decided On : 26-07-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharjee, Mrs. Reshmi Ghosh, Mrs. T. Bandyopadhyay, Advocates.
For the University :Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. Pattanaik, Mr. Debanshu Ghorai, Mr. S. Halder, Mr. Pappu Adhikari, Advocates.
The E.C. can delegate its power to initiate disciplinary proceedings to the V.C. under the Act of 1999. The V.C., as an officer of superior rank to the Registrar, has the power to initiate a disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar, independent of the delegation of power by the E.C.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY - Disciplinary Proceedings - Initiation by Vice-Chancellor - Delegation of Power - Validity - West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Act, 1999 (Act of 1999) - Schedule, Clauses 9(2), 12 - Executive Council (E.C.) - Power to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings - Delegation to Vice-Chancellor - Validity - Vice-Chancellor's Power to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings - Independent of Delegation - Act of 1999, Section 18(4) - Schedule, Clause 32 - Registrar - Power to Comply with Directions and Orders of Vice-Chancellor - Schedule, Clause 20(3)(a), (h).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the Registrar, challenged the E.C.'s decision to approve a proposal for his dismissal. The E.C. empowered the Vice-Chancellor (V.C.) to take suitable action regarding allegations of financial mismanagement. A committee submitted a report without identifying the guilty parties. The E.C. referred the report to the Finance Committee, which also failed to identify anyone for disciplinary action. The E.C. then authorized the V.C. to take appropriate action against erring officers and employees. The V.C. issued a notice to the petitioner, who submitted a reply. A charge-sheet was issued, and an Enquiry Officer submitted a report recommending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
1. The E.C. can delegate its power to initiate disciplinary proceedings to the V.C. under the Act of 1999. In the present case, the delegation was validly done. 2. The V.C., as an officer of superior rank to the Registrar, has the power to initiate a disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar, independent of the delegation of power by the E.C. 3. The initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the V.C. against the petitioner was validly done. 4. The V.C. does not have the power to impose any punishment on a delinquent, who is an employee of the University and who has been appointed by the E.C. 5. The petitioner's allegations of bias against the V.C. are not substantiated. 6. The Enquiry Officer's Report is detailed and contains reasons. 7. The E.C. considered the Enquiry Report itself, as well as a synopsis of the Enquiry Report. 8. The E.C.'s decision is sufficiently elaborate and contains reasons.
Issues: 1. Can the E.C. delegate its power to initiate disciplinary proceedings to the V.C. under the Act of 1999? If so, did the E.C. validly delegate such authority to the V.C. in the facts of this case? 2. Does the V.C. under the Act of 1999 have any power to initiate a disciplinary proceedings? 3. Is the disciplinary proceedings vitiated by bias? 4. Is the Enquiry Report perverse? 5. Is the decision of the E.C. dated June 18, 2016 bad for non- consideration of the Enquiry Report, response of the petitioner to the Enquiry Report and the evidences?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The E.C.'s power to initiate disciplinary proceedings can be delegated to the V.C. under Clauses 9(2) and 12 of the Schedule to the Act of 1999. 2. The V.C. has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings independent of the E.C.'s delegation, as per Section 18(4) of the Act of 1999 and Clause 32 of the Schedule. 3. The petitioner's allegations of bias against the V.C. are not substantiated. 4. The Enquiry Officer's Report is detailed and contains reasons. 5. The E.C. considered the Enquiry Report itself, as well as a synopsis of the Enquiry Report. 6. The E.C.'s decision is sufficiently elaborate and contains reasons.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed, and the interim order passed on July 15, 2016 is vacated.
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. The petitioner has assailed the decision of the Executive Council (E.C.) of the University dated June 18, 2016 by which the E.C. has approved the proposal for dismissal of the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was functioning as the Registrar of the University. A group of students of the University had made a representation alleging mismanagement of the funds of the University. The E.C. in its meeting dated February 8, 2014 had empowered the Vice Chancellor (V.C.) to take suitable action with regard to such representation. The V.C. had constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Justice N.N. Mathur (Retired) to look into the allegations. The committee had submitted its report without identifying the persons guilty. The report of the committee was placed before the E.C. on April 5, 2014. The E.C. had referred the report to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee in its meeting held on June 21, 2014 had submitted a report to the E.C. without identifying any person to be proceeded against. The E.C. in its meeting on July 5, 2014 had considered the report of the Finance Committee and had authorized the V.C. to take appropriate action against the erring officers and employees of the University. The V.C. had issued a notice dated July 21, 2014 upon the petitioner seeking clarification. The petitioner had submitted its reply on August 8, 2014. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on August 27, 2014 by the V.C.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has contended that, the V.C. was not delegated with the authority to institute any disciplinary proceedings. The E.C. is the only authority to initiate a disciplinary proceedings. E.C. is a creature of a statute. It has to function within the four corners of the statute establishing it. Such statute does not permit the E.C. to delegate its power of initiation of disciplinary proceedings to the V.C. The delegation of authority if at all made is bad in law. Independent of delegation of authority, the V.C. has no power to initiate a disciplinary proceedings. The E.C. in its meeting on July 5, 2014 or at any point of time did not permit the V.C. to initiate a disciplinary proceedings. He has referred to Section 3 of the West Bengal National university of Juridical Sciences Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1999”) as well as Section 5(xii) thereof. He has referred to Section 18 of the Act of 1999 and Clauses 9 and 12 of the Schedule to the Act of 1999. He has submitted that, Clause 9 of the Schedule to the Act of 1999 stipulates the powers and functions of the E.C. Clause 9(2) of the Schedule of the Act of 1999 allow the delegation of the power of appointment to an authority or authorities as the E.C. may direct. He has submitted that, the E.C. has to act within the four corners of the powers given to it under the statute. He has submitted that, the E.C. did not delegate any power under Clause 9(2) of the Schedule to the Act of 1999 to the V.C. Even if there is a delegation in terms of such clause he has submitted that, such delegation is limited to the power of appointment only. Such delegation does not bring within its sweep the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings. He has also submitted that, the E.C. could not have delegated the power of initiation of a disciplinary proceedings as it is the only authority to initiate a disciplinary proceedings and that, neither the Act nor the Schedule thereto allows the E.C. the power of delegation of the disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, he has submitted that, the E.C. at no point of time had taken any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
4. In support of his contention that a disciplinary proceedings has to be initiated by the authority concerned and the same cannot be delegated, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a passage from H.W.R. Wade on Administrative Law 6th Edition. He has als
