SISIR KUMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) IN view of the very nature of the application as we have to consider the question of law and the fact in details to dispose of the same, we are of the view that the appeal should also be taken up for hearing. Hence the appeal and the application both are being heard. The matter has been argued at length by the respective parties on different dates.

(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 4th September, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W. P. No. 19502 (W)of 2006. The writ application was filed by the present appellant assailing the continuation of the departmental proceeding as well as second show-cause notice of such departmental proceeding by supplying the enquiry report thereof which, however, was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge by the aforesaid judgment under appeal. The learned Trial Judge held that there was no scope for judicial review in the matter, though in the writ application the ingredients of bias for initiation of departmental proceeding were thrashed and urged. On diverse dates of hearing, we wanted to see the records of the departmental proceeding as well as the different resolution of the Governing Body of the College right from its very initial stage of preliminary investigation deciding the complaints as filed by different persons as well as till the date of finality of the matter. Records accordingly have been produced during the pendency of this appeal. However, the departmental proceeding concluded and penalty of compulsory retirement from service effective from 13th January, 2007 was passed by the resolutions of the Governing Body which, however, also has been assailed before us in the form of an affidavit by placing the entire documents to that effect. Before the connected writ application with reference to this appeal, another writ application was filed by the present appellant assailing the order of suspension, as issued by the decision of the Governing Body which has been registered as A. S. T. No. 2141 of 2005, subsequently renumbered as W. P. 4020 (W) of 2006 and the same is pending. The factual matrix which led the present appellant to take shelter by the writ application, in a nutshell as follows: the appellant before us is a Reader in the department of Zoology of Nara singha Datta College. The College was affiliated by the University of Calcutta. A dispute cropped up with another college teacher of the said College, viz. Dr. Swapan Kumar Das of the same department which prompted Dr. Swapan kumar Das to lodge complaint to the Governing Body of the College on 28th September, 2005 alleging, inter alia, his personal grievance in the working procedures as well as the behavioural aspect of the present appellant vis-a-vis that gentleman. Another complaint was also lodged addressed to the Principal of the said College on 28th September, 2005 alleging the conduct and activity of the present appellant with reference to his teaching mode and his behaviour with the students and the staffs by five teaching staff of the college inclusive of dr. Swapan Kumar Das. This complaint, however, was written by Dr. Das as it appears on verification of the handwriting of both the two complaints. Another complaint also was filed purportedly by seventeen students of the first year honours class of Zoology and two laboratory staff of the Zoology Laboratory supporting the contention of Dr. Swapan Kumar Das on the issue of alleged misbehaviour of the present appellant with Dr. Das. This complaint was also written by Dr. Swapan Kumar Das in his handwriting as it appears on mere verification of the handwriting by us. Another complaint also was lodged to the teacher-in-charge of Nara Singha Datta College by a group of teaching staff on 12th September, 2005 making certain allegations about non-taking of second year general practical class and non-assisting the students in the dissection class. This complaint also was signed amongst others by Dr. Swapan Kumar das. Dr. Das is also a member of the Governing Body. Another complaint was lodged by one student Priyadarshini Bhattacharyya, who was the General secretary of the Student's Union of the concerned college on 4th October, 2005 as addressed to the Principal of the said College alleging the teaching mode, pattern and behavioural aspect of the present appellant. The student, priyadarshini Bhattacharyya also was a member of the Governing Body at the relevant time. All these complaints were considered in the Governing Body meeting dated 30th September, 2005, wherein Dr. Swapan Kumar Das and the student's representative, the said Priyadarshini Bhattacharyya, both were present. In this meeting it was decided by the members present in the meeting wherein Dr. Swapan Kumar Das also took part in the decision making process as well as the said student's representative that a show-cause notice should be issued against the appellant directing him to show cause as to why appropriate disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated. The appellant replied and this reply was considered in the next meeting of the Governing Body dated 25th November, 2005 wherein also the said Dr. Swapan Kumar Das and priyadarshini Bhattacharyya both were present and took part in the decision making process. In that meeting it was decided that as the answer of the present appellant was not satisfactory, a formal chargesheet should be issued by subsequent resolution. Thereafter, on the next Governing Body meeting dated 12th December, 2005 wherein Dr. Das was present, the Governing Body by their decision, wherein Dr. Swapan Kumar Das also was a party of that decision, decided to initiate formal chargesheet. Thereafter, Dr. Das left the meeting and by considering another agenda the Governing Body authorized the President of the Governing Body to frame a charge and to serve the same to the gentleman, the present appellant and appointed an Enquiry Officer for completion of the departmental proceeding. Before that date by the Governing Body the appellant was suspended which was assailed in the writ application, as referred to. The departmental proceeding proceeded with chargesheet framed by the President of the Governing Body. The appellant took different points about bias and other issues in the departmental proceeding and moved a writ application with reference to the present appeal which was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge.