Visva Bharati & Anr vs Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7894 Cal

     29.11.22
01   Ct. No.11
     Sws.M
                                        MAT 745 of 2022
                                             With
                                         CAN 2 of 2022

                                Visva Bharati & Anr.
                                         Vs.
                   Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal &
                                        Ors.
                       Mr. Pranit Bag
                       Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya
                       Mr. Anuj Kumar Mishra
                                         ....for the Appellants

                       Mr. Arunava Ghosh
                       Mr. Puspal Chakraborty
                       Ms. Prisanka Ganguly
                                    .....for the Respondent No. 1

Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of

their name/names as printed above in the cause-title.

Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment

and order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 30 th

March, 2022 being WPA 1668 of 2022. By the said

impugned order the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased

to, inter alia, hold that the Disciplinary Proceeding

(DP) initiated by the appellants/ the Visva Bharati

University (for short the University) is not in

conformity with the University's statute. The Hon'ble

Single Bench, therefore, held that the DP against the

writ petitioner/ the respondent to this appeal is

without jurisdiction.

The Hon'ble Single Bench was also pleased to

hold that the Charge-Sheet issued against the writ

petitioner/the present respondent in the DP is

omnibus in nature. The Charge-Sheet stood

accordingly set aside.

Mr. Bag, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellants /the University, submits that the DP was

initiated by the Registrar (Acting) of the University in

conformity with the Statutes, being authorised by the

Vice-Chancellor (for short, VC) to do so. It is

submitted that the Vice Chancellor of the University

had instructed in writing that a DP should be initiated

against the writ petitioner/the present respondent

and, in terms of such instruction recorded in the

Office Notes, the Registrar (Acting) proceeded with the

Enquiry.

This Court is taken by learned Counsel for the

appellants to several provisions of the Statute to

demonstrate the point that the Registrar (Acting) was

the Competent Authority to initiate and conduct the

DP.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for

the writ petitioner/the present respondent, led by Mr.

Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the DP

could be initiated against the writ petitioner/the

present respondent qua his status as a Professor

under the University only by the Executive

Committee. From the documents connected to the

said DP signed by the Registrar (Acting), there is no

whisper that the Executive Committee authorised the

Registrar (Acting) to hold the said DP against the writ

petitioner/present respondent. It is submitted and, in

the view of this Court correctly so at this stage, that

the instruction to hold the said DP cannot be a matter

of personal decision-making by the VC. It is

submitted that the Hon'ble Single Bench was,

therefore, correct in holding that the DP held by the

Registrar (Acting) is without statutory basis.

The attention of this Court is further drawn to a

second writ petition, which has been tagged with this

appeal being WPA 8785 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2022.

This Court is taken through the contents of the

second writ petition wherefrom it appears that the

appellants/ the University proceeded to show-cause

the writ petitioner/the present respondent with the

charge that the writ petitioner/the present respondent

attempted to influence the DP, which is the subject

matter of this appeal, through a letter of a Hon'ble

Member of Parliament.

This Court is also informed that the writ

petitioner/the present respondent has denied the

contents of the said show-cause in the second writ

petition and the matter stands at this stage now.

Having closely heard the parties and

considering the materials placed, this Court is of the

view that at this stage the balance of convenience lies

in not staying the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench

dated 30th March, 2022.

This Court is also unable to agree with the

University's stand that the entire DP initiated against

the writ petitioner/the present respondent was strictly

in conformity with the University's Statutes.

Therefore, the prayer for stay of the order of the

Hon'ble Single Bench stands refused.

However, the appeal will be heard and parties

are permitted to file their Affidavits to the application

connected to this appeal since, this Court is further

informed, that Affidavits were not exchanged before

the Hon'ble Single Bench. This Court is of the further

view that at this stage the Hon'ble Single Bench was

called upon to decide an argument on law alone and,

has so decided.

In the interest of uniform adjudication, this

Court also directs that the denial of interim order in

this appeal shall cover the second writ petition, i.e.

WPA 8785 of 2022 and, the University is directed to

act accordingly.

Let Affidavit-in-Opposition be filed within four

weeks; Reply within two weeks thereafter.

Let requisite number of informal Paper Book(s)

be prepared by the appellants within a week after the

period directed to exchange Affidavits stands

completed. Let an advance copy of Paper Book(s) be

served on the writ petitioner/ the present respondent.

Liberty to mention after the period granted to

prepare Informal Paper Book(s) is complete.

In view of the pure consequential nature of the

action taken in the second writ petition being WPA

8785 of 2022, let WPA 8785 of 2022 be treated as part

of the present appeal and included by way of a

Supplementary Paper Book, to be also prepared by

the appellants. No Affidavits are called for in the

second writ petition, i.e. WPA 8785 of 2022 at this

stage, since the merits of the entire issue are expected

to be handled through Affidavits directed to be

exchanged in the present appeal.

All parties to act on a server copy of this order

downloaded from the official website of the Court.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J)