INDRANI DUTTA Vs. VIDYASAGAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO nip a disciplinary proceeding initiated against her in the bud, the petitioner (an Assistant Professor of the Department of English of Vidyasagar University) has presented this writ petition praying for an order as follows:

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, expressions used in the charge -sheet are such that the same provide sufficient reason for the petitioner to perceive that her disciplinary authority has pre -judged her guilt, and the enquiry and the subsequent steps to follow would be nothing but a mere ritual before she is punished. He further contended that the disciplinary authority did not apply his mind to the point as to whether the acts of omission/commission, as attributed to the petitioner and forming part of the charge -sheet, at all amount to misconduct warranting initiation of disciplinary proceeding against her in terms of the Vidyasagar University First Ordinances, 1985. There being a real danger of bias operating against the petitioner, he submitted that it would be an idle formality for her to participate in the proceeding and that imposition of penalty is a foregone conclusion.

(3.) IN reply, Mr. Basu invited my attention to Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra) and submitted that no law has been laid down therein that a charge -sheet can never be questioned. The word "ordinarily" has been consciously used, which makes the position clear that in an exceptional case a Court may be justified in interfering with a charge -sheet. This being an exceptional case, he urged that the Court's interference is warranted to set things right.