Intentional waiver of the right to challenge the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the effect of an agreed order in earlier litigation.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

CM Nos. 1286/2018 & 1336/2018 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

LPA 13/2018 & CM Nos. 1287/2018 (stay) & 1337/2018 (stay)

1. The present proceedings between the parties is the third occasion on which the appellant has sought to interdict the disciplinary enquiry initiated against her, by the respondent-College.

2. In an earlier round of litigation, as far back as on 5th July, 2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5758/2012, instituted on behalf of the appellant with the following order:

“Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 states that Justice S.L. Bhayana (Retired), a Judge of this Court has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer in the present case. It is therefore, agreed that the writ petition be disposed of and is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The enquiry proceedings against the petitioner will be completed within a period of four weeks from today. Enquiry Officer will fix the first date for fixing the effective date of hearing in the case within a period of 10 days from today. This date will be communicated to the petitioner through her counsel appearing in court today and which is being done to avoid any delay in communication to the petitioner of the first date to be fixed. Both the parties will have three opportunities each for leading evidence, and counsels for the parties agree that none of the parties will take unnecessary adjournments which will cause any delay to the enquiry proceedings. It is agreed that the Enquiry Officer can impose costs on the person seeking unnecessary adjournments.

(ii) The Enquiry Officer, before preparing the final enquiry report, will hear the parties or their representatives as per the Rules as applicable.

(iii) Both the parties are entitled to urge all their respective cases and stands before the Enquiry Officer in support of their cases, including as per the pleadings in the present writ petition.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.”

3. A perusal of the order extracted hereinabove, clearly reflects that, in view of the agreement of the parties and on account of the circumstance that a retired judge of this Court had been appointed as an Enquiry Officer, the said proceedings were disposed of. It was clearly directed that the enquiry proceedings initiated against the appellant be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order. It was also directed that the parties were entitled to urge all their respective contentions and stands before the Enquiry Officer in support of their respective cases.

4. It is with great dismay that we are constrained to observe that, despite the directions of this Court, the appellant in the present writ petition has sought to delay and stall the enquiry on grounds similar to the ones urged in the earlier rounds of litigation.

5. We are also informed that subsequent upon the rendering of the order impugned in the present appeal, the appellant has instituted yet another writ petition seeking recusal of the Enquiry Officer. The writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4103/2018 has since been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24th April, 2018, with the following findings:

“5. Upon hearing and no perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that the Inquiry Officer was a Member of respondent-University’s Court and Executive Council of respondent-University long ago and thus, the apprehension of bias is not well founded. It is true that the test and the manner in which issue of bias is to be considered, is to adopt a realistic and pragmatic approach. Upon testing the bias aspect on the touchstone of legal position as highlighted in the abovesaid decisions, I find that the plea of bias has been belatedly raised at the stage of final arguments. The Inquiry Officer has been conductin