JUDGMENT :

REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA, J.

1. The initiation of a disciplinary proceeding, against the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition. The proceeding is still at a nascent stage.

2. A brief enumeration of the facts is essential to appreciate the issue raised in this writ petition.

3. The petitioner is an associate professor in the Indian Statistical Institute (hereinafter, ‘ISI’), the respondent no. 1.

4. The petitioner was part of a group of persons who had created mayhem while a meeting of the PiCH&D Committee was in progress in the office of the Director of ISI on October 7, 2025. To de-escalate the issue, the Officiating Director had relented and called for a meeting of 5 members from the group in the office of the Director. The petitioner was one of the five who attended the meeting with the Officiating Director. During the conversation/meeting, the petitioner became extremely aggressive and behaved in an abrasive and abusive manner. In fact, the petitioner’s conduct was allegedly derogatory, humiliating and almost hinged on violating the modesty of the Officiating Director, a lady.

5. Amongst others members present in the room, was the Deputy Director.

6. It is this Deputy Director who had subsequently lodged a complaint with the Officiating Director on October 15, 2025, which was duly received by the Officiating Director.

7. Though the Director is the designated Disciplinary Authority, since she was one of the central figures of the incident, she recused herself from the process and the procedure.

8. On her recusal, the Chief Executive Officer (Administration and Finance) of ISI with the approval of the Chairman of the Council of ISI issued a letter on November 11, 2025, intimating all concerned that Professor Pallab Banerji, Professor of IIT Kharagpur of Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) and a member of the Council of ISI had been appointed as the disciplinary authority (hereinafter the DA). This step had been taken with the approval of the Chairman, as the next highest authority in the organisational hierarchy as the Officiating Director, the designated DA, had recused herself from the matter.

9. It is in these circumstances that Professor Banerjee, hereinafter respondent no. 5, as the DA had issued a show cause notice to which a reply was given by the petitioner on November 26, 2025, without in any manner challenging the jurisdictional capability or the authority of the respondent no. 5 to issue such notice. In fact, subsequent letters of December 15, 2025 and January 16, 2026 were also bereft of the allegation that the respondent no. 5 did not have any jurisdiction to initiate any action against the petitioner.

10. In the meanwhile, between the two replies of the petitioner of December 15, 2025 and January 16, 2026, the respondent no. 5 on January 9, 2026 had issued the chargesheet containing the articles of charge.

11. A notice was issued on March 11, 2026 by the respondent no. 5 through the Registrar of ISI that the first hearing would take place on March 18, 2026. The writ petition was filed on March 16, 2026.

12. It is these articles of charge and the mode and the manner in which the same were issued that have been questioned and challenged in this writ petition.

13. Kallol Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has primarily raised two issues, namely: (i) jurisdictional deficiency and (ii) bias and premeditated mind of the Disciplinary Authority (DA):

i. Re: Jurisdictional Deficiency:

a. The jurisdictional deficiency of the Chairman of the Council to appoint the respondent no. 5 as the DA. Thus, since this appointment itself is bad, the entire proceeding is vitiated.

b. The second limb of the jurisdictional issue emanates from the first limb, that the respondent no. 5, not being properly appointed cannot act as the DA on account whereof, any or all steps taken by him are dehors the provisions guiding the disciplinary proceeding and hence liable to be set aside.

c. The jurisdictional deficienc