IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

APPELLATE SIDE Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee WPA 22091 of 2017 Indrani Datta (Chaudhuri)

Vs.

Vidyasagar University & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ratul Biswas, Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Ms. Soumoyadipa Kanu, Mr. Sourojit Mukherjee, Mr. Durlav De.

For the Vidyasagar University : Mr. Joydip Kar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Ms. Koyel Bag, Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Ms. Shahina Haque.

Heard on : 12.03.2026 Judgment on : 16.04.2026 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:-

Preface:

1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for a declaration that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against her vide charge-sheet dated 3rd November, 2016 by the respondent no. 4, namely the Executive Council of the University, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. In addition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with the enquiry initiated on the basis of the said charge-sheet and the enquiry report dated 28th April, 2017, as also a writ of certiorari for quashing the said charge-sheet and the enquiry report.

Facts:

2. The dispute giving rise to present litigation began in or about June 2016, when the Registrar of the University as per direction of the Vice-Chancellor of the University (for short, VC) issued a notice dated June 14, 2016 containing certain itemized queries regarding the petitioner’s conduct. The petitioner replied to the said notice on June 28, 2016, categorically denying all allegations and contending that the queries were vague, unsupported by any material particulars, and issued without proper authority.

3. However, despite such reply, the University proceeded to issue a formal charge-sheet dated 3rd November, 2016, pursuant to a decision of the Executive Council of the University (for short, EC), containing nine charges. The essence of the allegations is as follows:

i) The petitioner undermined the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar by impleading them by name with distorted address in W.P. No. 23136 (W) of 2015 and sent emails to Executive Council members intimating such impleadment;

ii) By RTI application dated 24th August, 2012, she sought details of the VC’s foreign visits since 1st November, 2011 and subsequently a news item was published on the same issue in the Dainik Statesman on 3.11.2012 and the University authority had reason to believe that such information was leaked by the petitioner.

iii) She made unauthorized and distorted statements to the press on official matters, causing defamation;

iv) In 2013–2014, she lodged complaints against colleagues without prior permission and taking name of the VC attempted to malign him;

v) She disregarded the University calendar and attempted to reschedule classes on holidays, questioning the Registrar’s directions;

vi) She remained on unauthorized absence from 1st July, 2015 to

31st August, 2015 and later applied for earned leave;

vii) She developed a habit of disobeying official communication protocols and sent emails to the personal email id of the VC.

viii) She developed a habit of making false allegations, including of sexual harassment against her senior colleagues including Prof. Das Purkayastha, affecting the University’s reputation;

ix) She acted beyond her authority and showed in subordination by sending email dated 12th October, 2015 at 5:23 P.M. to the VC and forward to the members of the 7th Executive Council;

4. The petitioner submitted a detailed written statement of defence on 17th November, 2016, disputing not only the allegations on merits but also raising a specific objection to the jurisdiction of the EC to initiate and conclude disciplinary proceedings against her. According to the petitioner, in view of the deletion of the word ‘teachers’ wherever it occurs in Section 21(ix) of the Vidyasagar University Act, 1981, as introduced by the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act,