Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rcc Institute Of Information ... vs Dr. Goutam Pal & Ors on 20 January, 2022
10-11
20.01.2022
Ct. No.04
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
(Through Video Conference)
MAT 1187 of 2021
with
CAN 1 of 2021
RCC Institute of Information Technology & Ors.
Vs.
Dr. Goutam Pal & Ors.
with
MAT 1071 of 2021
with
CAN 1 of 2021
Dr. Goutam Pal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Piush Chaturvedi
Mr. Anujit Mookerji
... For the appellants in MAT 1187 of 2021 &
for the respondents RCC Institute of
Information Technology in MAT 1071 of 2021
Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra
... For the appellant in MAT 1071 of 2021 &
for the respondent no.1 in MAT 1187 of 2021
Mr. Ankit Sureka
... For the respondent no.9 in MAT 1187 of 2021
& for the respondent no.6 in MAT 1071 of 2021
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee
Mr. Somnath Naskar
... For the State respondents
Both the appeals are filed against an order dated
September 15, 2021 passed by the Single Bench in WPA
13786 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the office order
dated August 4, 2021 issued by the Chairman, Governing
Body, RCC Institute of Information Technology, was set
aside.
The sole reason which has been assigned in the
impugned order can be perceived from the meaningful
reading of the observations recorded therein which leaves
no ambiguity that the said office order dated August 4,
2021 was set aside solely on the ground that the moment
the Division Bench in a pending Mandamus Appeal has
directed the College authorities to complete the
disciplinary proceeding, the action beyond the said
stipulated period is per se illegal, more particularly in
absence of any order extending such period. There is no
difficulty in perceiving the grievance of the College
authorities as an aggrieved person for the reason that the
office order issued on August 4, 2021 was set aside, but
we have been invited to consider whether the writ
petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition can be said to be an
aggrieved person so as to maintain the appeal under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the writ
petitioner, submits that he raised a very serious issue
relating to bias which has not been addressed nor any
finding is returned thereupon. The writ petitioner felt
aggrieved by such vacuum having created in the said
judgment as the plea of bias strikes at the root of the
issues involved in the writ petition.
A little prelude to the genesis of the said writ
petition is required to be recapitulated and succinctly
narrated before we embark our journey to the points
canvassed before us.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the
writ petition which culminated into an order of dismissal.
The writ petitioner challenged the said order in WP
No.13874 (W) of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed
of on November 13, 2019 upon setting aside the order of
dismissal to have been passed in violation of the principles
of natural justice and there is smack of bias.
Simultaneously, the liberty was granted to the College
authorities to proceed afresh from the stage of
appointment of an enquiry officer and such proceeding to
be concluded within six months from the said date. It was
further observed that such enquiry officer must be an
independent person and not connected with the affairs of
the College. However, the order of suspension was not
interfered with.
The aforesaid judgment and order was carried to in
an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, being MAT 2002 of
2019, and the same was admitted. While considering the
prayer for interim order, the Division Bench categorically
observed that the College authorities must make an
enquiry as to whether any enquiry officer not connected
with the College was appointed in the past. If the answer is
affirmative, then the College authorities must comply the
direction passed by the Single Bench in this regard
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
respective parties in the appeal. Ultimately, the Division
Bench observed that in the event such precedent is not
there, then also the enquiry officer must be appointed
according to the Rules applicable in this regard.
Ultimately, the Division Bench directed such proceeding to
be concluded within six months from the date of the order,
i.e., August 26, 2020.
Admittedly, there was no steps taken at the behest
of the respondent College nor the proceeding could be
concluded within the stipulated time. But the fact remains
that the step was taken by appointing a retired judicial
officer who had one point of time held the post of Registrar
in this High Court as en enquiry officer. Since the
appointment was made by the Chairman, Governing Body,
RCC Institute of Information Technology, i.e., the College,
it leads the writ petitioner to move the writ petition not
only on the ground of bias against the said Chairman, but
also such exercise has been ensued upon the expiry of the
period as stipulated in the order dated August 26, 2020.
The impugned order would further reveal that an
application for modification of the order was also taken out
by the respondent College because of the ambiguity having
created in the word "disciplinary authority". Be that as it
may, the said application has not been disposed of as yet
and it is undisputed that the time indicated in the order
dated August 26, 2020 was not extended.
We do not find from the aforesaid order dated
August 26, 2020 wherein the time was stipulated for
completion of the proceeding that any consequence was
also provided therein in the event of non-adherence
thereto. Fixing a time within which the authorities must
act and foreclose the proceeding is one thing and the fact
that the time was stipulated with consequences in the
event of non-observations thereof. In the former case, the
action taken by the authorities even beyond the said
stipulated period does not ipso facto be rendered invalid;
but in the latter case, if the consequences are provided
such action should fall on such anvil and the
consequences would be the guiding factor. Non-
observation of the time fixed in the order may invite other
consequences provided in the Contempt of Courts Act but
it can never be conceived that such order would be
rendered unworkable or invalid or liable to be set aside.
Furthermore, the Single Bench at the threshold
proceeded to dismiss the writ petition despite the fact that
the serious question of bias was raised by the writ
petitioner and that too without calling for affidavits and
the disclosure of the relevant materials in support thereof.
The plea of bias has a far-reaching consequence and has
to be looked upon jealously and scrupulously as every
action taken by an authority with the element of bias
cannot withstand on legal parameters. It is essentially a
mixed question of facts and law and, therefore, stronger
evidence is required before the Court proceeded to strike
down the action on the plea of bias.
Several judgments have been placed before us by
the writ petitioner touching upon the concept of bias
which, if decided upon, will make the impugned judgment
more lengthy and the issue which has not been touched
upon by the Single Bench shall be decided in the instant
appeals.
We, thus, refrain from going into such aspect in
absence of any counter-affidavit to be filed by the
appellants in the instant appeals. Since we do not find that
the manner in which the writ petition has been dismissed
by the impugned order is legally sustainable, the plea of
bias can be eventually decided by the Single Bench before
whom we propose to remand the matter.
The order impugned is set aside. The writ petition
is restored to its original file and number.
Mr. Chatterjee seeks leave to file a supplementary
affidavit disclosing the important and vital documents
which owe its existence after the filing of the writ petition.
Such leave is granted. The supplementary affidavit
shall be filed before the Single Bench to be affirmed within
three days from date. A copy thereof shall be served
immediately upon Mr. Chaturvedi and the other
respondents, if there be any.
The respondents of the writ petition are directed to
file their affidavits-in-opposition both to the writ petition
and the supplementary affidavit within three weeks from
date. Reply, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter.
The Single Bench is requested to hear out the writ
petition on merit on the basis of the facts disclosed by the
respective parties.
We further make it clear that all points, including
the maintainability of the writ petition, are kept open and
once taken shall be decided in accordance with law.
Both the appeals and the connected applications
are disposed of accordingly.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of
necessary formalities.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
