IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya F.M.A. 22 of 2017 With CAN 2 of 2021 (ASSIGNED)

Dr. Tapas Ranjan Bandyopadhyay Vs.

National Institute of Technology & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. B. N. Ray, Ms. Shetparna Ray For the Respondents : Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia Judgment on : December 12, 2025.

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The present appellant/ writ petitioner was a faculty member in the National Institute of Technology, Durgapur (NIT Durgapur in short). He was inflicted with a punishment of termination from service dated 04.05.2007, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.10.2010. The writ petition was filed assailing the termination order as also the order of affirmation of the removal/termination order by the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court by its judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed in WP No. 23699 (W) of

2010, which is put to challenge by the writ petitioner in the present intra court appeal.

2. It would be relevant to notice the fact(s) that this is the 5th Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner since the issuance of Charge Memo dated 08.10.2004. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the writ petitioner, in the present writ proceeding, for the first time raised an issue regarding lack of jurisdiction of the authority issuing charge memo dated 08.10.2004. Prior to this writ proceeding no such issue was raised by the writ petitioner. The petitioner participated in the proceedings based on the Charge Memo without any objection. The point of jurisdiction, therefore, now cannot be allowed to be raised by the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has further noticed that writ petitioner could not establish that at the time of issuance of Charge Memo any other rules or regulations was in place based on which he could show that Director of the Institute was not the competent authority for initiating the proceedings.

3. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the charge against the writ petitioner namely: (i) his refusal to set question papers, as directed by the authorities for examination to be conducted in the B-Tech Course/s and (ii) it that he refused to examine the answer scripts ignoring the direction of the authorities in this regard. At the relevant point of time the petitioner was Senior Lecturer in the Metallurgical Engineering Department. There was another allegation also regarding handing over of copy of documents to the press, thereby making public, the name of paper setters and examiners for an examination, the result of which was yet to be published. Thus, it was alleged that by such conduct the petitioner jeopardized the whole examination process, putting at stake the fate of Under-Graduate and Post-Graduate student of Metallurgical Engineering Department.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner admitted his refusal to set the question papers as also to evaluate the answer scripts. In view of his express admission, coupled with unsustainable justification for such refusal tendered by the petitioner in this regard, the learned Single Judge was of the view that it is a case of gross insubordination by the writ petitioner. The act of insubordination had the effect of jeopardizing the academic calendar and career of the students. The learned single judge was of the view that the authorities have rightly taken the measures, impugned by the writ petitioner.

5. The learned single judge further found that there was no procedural error in the Departmental Proceeding conducted against the petitioner. Having regard to the limited scope of judicial review there being no procedural infirmity, the learned Single Judge was of the view that there was no scope to interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the writ petitioner.

6. The learned Advocate f