Disciplinary proceedings require clear communication of specific charges and independent consideration of a respondent's objections to uphold principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. Challenging the disciplinary proceeding including the impugned resolutions and orders passed by the disciplinary authority whereby, a punishment in the form of major penalty of dismissal from service having been affected on the petitioner with effect from 16th October, 2017, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner while working in the office of the Controller Auditor General of India, in response to an advertisement of Bose Institute, an autonomous institute, Department of Science and Technology, under the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, having its office at 93/1, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata – 700009, had applied for the post of Registrar of the said institution (hereinafter referred to as the “said institute”). The petitioner was selected for the post of Registrar of the said institute, and had accordingly joined the institute as Registrar on 1st June, 2012. While discharging his duty as Registrar, on the basis of a complaint made against him on 22nd July, 2014, by one Non-Governmental Organization, the same was acted upon by the Central Vigilance Officer of the Department of Science and Technology, Central Vigilance Commission. On the basis of the advice given by the Central Vigilance Officer, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8th October, 2014 by the said institute. On 11th September, 2014, the respondent no.4 in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8 (1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) directed that an investigation to be conducted against the petitioner into the complaint lodged. Subsequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Memorandum of Charge-sheet issued on 30th March, 2015 and an enquiry officer was appointed. Challenging the order of suspension as well as the charge-sheet, the petitioner filed two separate writ petitions, which were registered as W.P. No. 6081 (W) of 2015 and W.P. No. 8820 (W) of 2015. By an order dated 8th May, 2015, this Hon’ble Court after considering the report of the fact-finding committee and also noting that the Council till then did not ratify the action of the Director in placing the petitioner under suspension directed the Council of said Institute to arrive at a decision whether any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was at all warranted or not. The matter was accordingly placed under the heading ‘to be mentioned’ and made returnable. During the pendency of the writ petitions, Bose Institute Council in its 183rd meeting decided to ratify the decision of the Director of Bose Institute, placing the petitioner under suspension and commenced disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. This, according to the petitioner, was not in accordance with law. However, by order dated 22nd July, 2016, the Hon’ble Court taking note of the developments, disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:

1. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner shall furnish to him copy of the enquiry report within a fortnight from date of receipt of a copy of this order;

2. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all points available to him in law as well as the points raised in these writ petitions in his response to the enquiry report, which must be submitted within a month of receipt thereof, and

3. The disciplinary authority shall give due consideration to the response of the petitioner and pass a final o