Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Sarkar, J.
Dr. Goutam Pal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 13874 (W) of 2016 with CAN. No. 3217 of 2019
Decided On : 13-11-2019
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - BIAS - ENQUIRY OFFICER - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - RCC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (RCCIT) - AUTONOMOUS SOCIETY - INSTRUMENTALITY OF STATE - WRIT JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - PUBLIC DUTY - PUBLIC FUNCTION - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - PRIVATE UNAIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - GOVERNMENT AID - FINANCIAL AID - ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL - SUPERVISION - COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF MANAGEMENT - NOMINATION OF MEMBERS - DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL - CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT - DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL - AD-HOC COMMITTEE - GOVERNOR OF WEST BENGAL - MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION - REGULATIONS - SERVICE RULES - ADMINISTRATIVE RULES - ACADEMIC RULES - FINANCIAL RULES - GOVERNING BODY - VACANCIES - FILLING UP OF VACANCIES - CONSULTATION WITH STATE GOVERNMENT - OVERALL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL - ALL PERVASIVE CONTROL - JUDICIAL REVIEW - REASONABLE MAN TEST - LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS - REAL LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS - SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBILITY OF BIAS - PERSONAL INTEREST - DISQUALIFICATION - PERSONAL STAKE - ILLEGALITY - CURABLE ILLEGALITY - INCURABLE ILLEGALITY - SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE - ARREARS OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE - INSTALLMENTS - FRACTION - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an assistant professor in the RCC Institute of Information Technology (RCCIT), was placed under suspension and subsequently dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the order of dismissal on the grounds of bias, violation of principles of natural justice, procedural irregularity, and non-observance of service rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias as the enquiry officer had a personal interest in the matter and had acted in a pre-determined manner. The court also held that the RCCIT was an autonomous society substantially financed and controlled by the Government of West Bengal and was therefore an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, making the writ petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias? 2. Whether the RCCIT was an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the enquiry officer had a personal interest in the matter as he had demanded the petitioner's termination and had threatened to abstain from work and continue an agitation if steps were not taken to terminate the petitioner. The court also held that the enquiry officer had acted in a pre-determined manner as he had refused to call upon witnesses to prove the written testimony and had not allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. 2. The court held that the RCCIT was an autonomous society substantially financed and controlled by the Government of West Bengal. The court noted that the Government of West Bengal had taken a lead role in the establishment and administration of the RCCIT, that the members of the society were nominated by the Government of West Bengal, and that the Board of Management of the society framed the rules and regulations governing the RCCIT. The court also noted that the RCCIT received financial aid from the Government of West Bengal. 3. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the RCCIT was an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the enquiry report and the order of dismissal. The court also directed the respondent college to proceed afresh from the stage of appointment of an enquiry officer within six months from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Sarkar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet dated November 14, 2011, which resulted in the submission of the enquiry officer's report and ultimately led to the order of the disciplinary authority dated November 20, 2012, dismissing the petitioner from service. The case of the petitioner as canvassed in the writ petition is that, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer, (now renamed as assistant professor) of mathematics in the RCC Institute of Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as the said college) in January 2006. On and from January 2006, the petitioner was a member of a staff association and later functioned as its president. The association campaigned against certain illegalities in the college. The petitioner along with several members of the association, met the officer-in-charge of the said college, Smt. Arpita Banerjee on June 10, 2011 and submitted a memorandum of demands. The officer-in-charge misbehaved with them and the petitioner and Professor Sukla Banerjee filed a written complaint with the police. An FIR was registered and Tiljala Police Station, Case No.230 of 2011 was initiated against the said officer-in-charge. In retaliation to their action, the petitioner along with two (2) other faculty members were placed under suspension by an order dated June 30, 2011. The officer-in-charge of the said college also lodged a complaint with the police against the petitioner and other staff members of the association. The order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.11010 (w) of 2011. During the pendency of the writ petition, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner by the Chairman of the said college vide memo dated November 14, 2011, on allegations of insubordination, inefficiency, misbehavior with ladies and interference with the functioning of the said college. That the principal of the said college was the appropriate disciplinary authority and not the chairman, who acted as the disciplinary authority. That the resolution of the governing body of the said college dated June 21, 2011, was contrary to the rules, inasmuch as, the required quorum was not available when the decision to suspend the petitioner, and also the decision that the chairman of the said college would act as the disciplinary authority had been taken. That Shri Pradip Kumar Dey, the respondent No.12 who acted as the enquiry officer was biased as he was the president of a rival association of the said college, who in the past had made allegations against the petitioner and had demanded that the petitioner be dismissed from service. Although, the petitioner had pointed out by several letters during the course of the enquiry proceedings that the enquiry officer was biased, the enquiry continued and the enquiry officer submitted his report, finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The enquiry officer continued with the proceeding ex-parte and ultimately submitted the report. The chairman of the governing body, that is, the disciplinary authority in this case, issued a notice dated October 18, 2012, directing the petitioner to show cause against the enquiry report. Although, the petitioner by a letter dated October 28, 2012, requested a months' time to submit a comprehensive reply, the disciplinary authority extended the time by only seven (7) days, that is, upto November 10, 2012. By a letter dated November 8, 2012, the petitioner again requested for further time. However, the petitioner submitted a reply on November 26, 2012, but the disciplinary authority issued the final order of punishment on November 20, 2012, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner did not receive the order of punishment but came to know of the same from a subsequent communication dated May 15, 2013. It was contended by the petitioner that the order of dismissal from service was issued on
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
