Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition preferred by the petitioner, professor and Proctor at Visva-Bharati University, challenging the disciplinary proceedings resulting in his removal from the post, a single-judge bench comprising of Kausik Chanda,* J., on finding procedural irregularities and a misdirection in the disciplinary proceedings, sets aside the imposed penalty and orders the refund of any deducted amount to the petitioner with interest.
Background:
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a professor and Proctor at Visva-Bharati University, faced disciplinary action for his alleged failure to address student agitation on 28-02-2022. The university accused him of misconduct, leading to the imposition of a major penalty. The petitioner challenged these proceedings, citing procedural irregularities, lack of evidentiary support, bias, and an excessive penalty.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner claimed the enquiry lacked fundamental fairness, as he received no information about the procedure despite seeking it. He emphasised that the hurried single-day enquiry prevented him from cross-examining witnesses, violating legal principles. The petitioner argued that the enquiry report lacked correlation between charges and evidence, undermining its credibility. The petitioner also highlighted a failure to address reasons for favoring the charge sheet over the petitioner’s defense.
The petitioner contended that his resignation under duress due to Vice-Chancellor’s directions was overlooked, affecting a fair assessment of the situation. It was further argued that extreme stress rendered his resignation non-voluntary, citing challenging circumstances and potential harm from agitating students. The petitioner also alleged bias and pre-determination in the proceedings, referencing a judgment supporting this claim. It was argued that the imposed penalty exceeded the disciplinary authority’s jurisdiction, relying on legal precedent.
University’s Defense
The respondent claimed the petitioner admitted incompetence and lack of will to perform the statutory role of Proctor in response to the show-cause notice and charge-sheet. It was argued that the petitioner’s admission obviated the need for prosecution witnesses or further evidence. The respondent highlighted the petitioner’s failure to provide medical documentation justifying his absence, questioning the legitimacy of health reasons. It was asserted that a full-fledged enquiry would not have yielded a different outcome given the petitioner’s admission. The respondent further contended that the second part of the penalty did not affect the petitioner’s rights or conditions of service.
Court’s Assessment
The Court found flaws in the enquiry process, noting deviations from established legal principles and insufficient evidentiary support. While considering the allegations of bias and pre-determination, the Court deemed the imposed penalty exceeding the disciplinary authority’s jurisdiction.
The Court emphasised the importance of adherence to disciplinary procedures and rules, specifically the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Court noted the absence of prosecution witnesses and a failure to appreciate the justification for the petitioner’s refusal to meet agitating students.
After considering both parties’ arguments, the Court found fundamental flaws in the procedural aspects of the enquiry. The Court opined that the disciplinary proceedings failed to follow the appropriate rules, and the enquiry committee did not adequately assess the justification for the petitioner’s actions. The Court held that the petitioner’s act did not per se constitute misconduct, and the disciplinary proceedings were set aside.
Court’s Decision
The Court also set aside the disciplinary proceedings and imposed penalty and directed the refund of any deducted amount from the petitioner’s salary with interest.
[Samiran Mondal v. Visva-Bharati, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4740, order dated 30-11-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Kausik Chanda
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Arka Maiti, Ms. Abmiya Khatun, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Counsel for the Respondents
