GOUTAM PAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet dated November 14, 2011, which resulted in the submission of the enquiry officer's report and ultimately led to the order of the disciplinary authority dated November 20, 2012, dismissing the petitioner from service. The case of the petitioner as canvassed in the writ petition is that, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer, (now renamed as assistant professor) of mathematics in the RCC Institute of Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as the said college) in January 2006. On and from January 2006, the petitioner was a member of a staff association and later functioned as its president. The association campaigned against certain illegalities in the college. The petitioner along with several members of the association, met the officer-in-charge of the said college, Smt. Arpita Banerjee on June 10, 2011 and submitted a memorandum of demands. The officer-in-charge misbehaved with them and the petitioner and Professor Sukla Banerjee filed a written complaint with the police. An FIR was registered and Tiljala Police Station, Case No.230 of 2011 was initiated against the said officer-in-charge. In retaliation to their action, the petitioner along with two (2) other faculty members were placed under suspension by an order dated June 30, 2011. The officer-in-charge of the said college also lodged a complaint with the police against the petitioner and other staff members of the association. The order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.11010 (w) of 2011. During the pendency of the writ petition, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner by the Chairman of the said college vide memo dated November 14, 2011, on allegations of insubordination, inefficiency, misbehavior with ladies and interference with the functioning of the said college. That the principal of the said college was the appropriate disciplinary authority and not the chairman, who acted as the disciplinary authority. That the resolution of the governing body of the said college dated June 21, 2011, was contrary to the rules, inasmuch as, the required quorum was not available when the decision to suspend the petitioner, and also the decision that the chairman of the said college would act as the disciplinary authority had been taken. That Shri Pradip Kumar Dey, the respondent No.12 who acted as the enquiry officer was biased as he was the president of a rival association of the said college, who in the past had made allegations against the petitioner and had demanded that the petitioner be dismissed from service. Although, the petitioner had pointed out by several letters during the course of the enquiry proceedings that the enquiry officer was biased, the enquiry continued and the enquiry officer submitted his report, finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The enquiry officer continued with the proceeding ex-parte and ultimately submitted the report. The chairman of the governing body, that is, the disciplinary authority in this case, issued a notice dated October 18, 2012, directing the petitioner to show cause against the enquiry report. Although, the petitioner by a letter dated October 28, 2012, requested a months' time to submit a comprehensive reply, the disciplinary authority extended the time by only seven (7) days, that is, upto November 10, 2012. By a letter dated November 8, 2012, the petitioner again requested for further time. However, the petitioner submitted a reply on November 26, 2012, but the disciplinary authority issued the final order of punishment on November 20, 2012, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner did not receive the order of punishment but came to know of the same from a subsequent communication dated May 15, 2013. It was contended by the petitioner that the order of dismissal from service was issued on November 20, 2012 without considering the reply of the petitioner dated November 26, 2012. According to the petitioner, the decision of the disciplinary authority, the entire proceedings including the issuance of the charge sheet and all actions taken on the basis thereof were vitiated on the ground of bias, violation of the principles of natural justice, procedural irregularity and non-observance of the service rules applicable to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits, upon setting aside and quashing the charge sheet, enquiry report and the order of dismissal from service.

(3.) The Chairman of the Board of Management of the RCC IT, society filed an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 10. He stated on behalf of the said respondents that a society known as Regional Computer Centre was formed under the trusteeship of the National Informatics Centre under the Department of Information, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology of the Government of India, the Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal and the University Grants Commission. The centre was operating in India through two different branches, one at Chandigarh and the other at Calcutta. The said college was established for the purpose of imparting computer education amongst the students and for providing engineering degree under the governance and control of the aforesaid autonomous society. On February 14, 2002 the branch of Regional Computer Centre operating in Calcutta got merged with DOEACC Society formed by and under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India and was renamed as DOEACC centre, Kolkata. In the year 2003, the Government of West Bengal approached the relevant ministry of the central government, with a proposal to take over the lead role in the management of the said centre and provide a permanent solution with a package for taking over the centre on "as is where is basis" and to save the same from closure. On September 1, 2003, the Government of India accorded sanction to such proposal from the state government.