Dr. Goutam Pal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4321 Cal

32    18.07.
RKB   2022
Ct
21                                     W.P.A. 13786 of 2021
                                         CAN 1/2022

                                       Dr. Goutam Pal.
                                              Vs
                                State of West Bengal & Ors.


               Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee,
               Mr. Anirudha Mitra.                   ... for the petitioner.

               Mr. Saptangshu Basu, sr. adv.
               Mr. Rajib Mullik,
               Mr. Ankit Sureka,
               Ms. Mrinali Majumdar.      ... for the respondent no.6

Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Mr. Anujit Mookherjee ... for the respondent no.8

Let the supplementary affidavit filed by the

petitioner be kept with the records.

In this application the petitioner prays for stay of

the enquiry proceeding in connection with a disciplinary

proceeding initiated against him on the ground of bias

of the enquiry officer, who is a retired judicial officer.

In substance, it is alleged that the enquiry officer

is in close and regular contact with the disciplinary

authority and the witnesses behind the back of the

petitioner.

In support of the application, Mr. Ranajit

Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for petitioner

relies upon the paragraph 33 of the judgment reported

at (2001) 2 SCC 330 (State of Pubjab vs. V.K.

Khanna).

Paragraph 33 is quoted below:

33. While it is true that justifiability of the charges at the stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly be delved into by any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malice or mala fide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a charge-sheet or the authority concerned is so biased that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of the public official. It is not a question of shielding any misdeed that the Court would be anxious to do, it is the due process of law which should permeate in the society and in the event of there being any affectation of such process of law that law courts ought to rise up the occasion and the High Court, in the contextual facts, has delved into the issue on that score. On the basis of the findings no exception can be taken and that has been the precise reason as to why this Court dealt with the issue in so great a detail so as to examine the judicial propriety at this stage of the proceedings."

Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior advocate

denies such allegations. He submits that enquiry is

already complete and the enquiry officer submitted his

report before the disciplinary authority on 15th July,

2022.

There cannot be quarrel with the proposition that

if the allegation of bias is established against an enquiry

officer, the disciplinary proceedings cannot proceed any

further.

In the present case, however, since the enquiry is

already over, there cannot be any scope to pass any

interim order in this application to stall the enquiry.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period

of three weeks from date; reply thereto may be filed

within one week thereafter.

Decision of the disciplinary authority will,

however, be abide by the result of the writ petition.

List the matter after four weeks under the same

heading.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)