JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The writ petitioner prays for setting aside of an Enquiry Report dated 23.3.2018 and for allowing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings upon reopening the enquiry once again.

2. The impugned Enquiry Report dated 23.3.2018 concludes that all the 21 charges levelled against the petitioner, who was the Controller of the Examinations of the University at the relevant point of time, have been established in the enquiry on an unconditional and voluntary admission of the charges by the petitioner (Charged Officer) on repeated occasions. The petitioner was suspended by the University by an order dated 3.3.2017 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks setting aside of the Enquiry Report on several grounds. Counsel submits that the disciplinary authority deliberately delayed the enquiry proceedings and failed to produce the documents which the petitioner asked for. Counsel submits that the petitioner replied to the Enquiry Report by denying the findings of the Enquiry Officer and requested the Vice-Chancellor of the University to reopen the enquiry. It is further submitted that the petitioner suffered from a mental condition at the relevant point of time and was therefore not in a fit mental state at the time of admitting to the charges. Counsel also submits that the Enquiry Officer prevailed upon the petitioner to admit to the charges and plead guilty of the alleged wrong doing.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the West Bengal State University places documents to show that the petitioner was given every opportunity to present his defence and that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that the disciplinary authority could not take a final decision on the Enquiry Report by reason of the pendency of the writ petitions which were earlier filed by the petitioner. Counsel disputes that the petitioner suffered from any mental condition at the relevant point of time.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State supports the stand of the University in that the petitioner voluntarily admitted to the charges levelled against him and that the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings at every stage.

6. This Court has considered the material on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The documents, which are germane to the matter, are being briefly described. The Memorandum of Charges dated 31.7.2017 indicates that the petitioner, who was the Controller of the Examinations of the University, gave assurance to various students for enhancing their marks and permitted students to appear in the examination on the basis of provisional Admit Cards without photographs of the students. The petitioner thereafter was responsible in withholding the results of the students on the pretext that such cases could not be entertained after the lapse of one and half years. The petitioner has also been charged of issuing provisional mark-sheets without following the process of re-evaluation or scrutiny which is against the rules of the University. There are a total of 21 charges of serious nature primarily of issuing mark-sheets to students without a proper re-evaluation or scrutiny. The petitioner responded to the charges by way of a detailed letter. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 17.10.2017. The petitioner thereafter participated in the hearing conducted by the Enquiry Officer; there were at least 8 hearings.

7. The 6th hearing conducted on 8.3.2018 is important. The record shows that the petitioner unconditionally pleaded guilty before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his plea of guilt to the Enquiry Officer which was marked as X-4. The record further shows that the petitioner/Charged Officer not only pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against him unconditionally but also expressed his desire to resign from the service of the University. The Enquiry Officer, in fact, after examining the