Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Snandy vs (Order Passed) on 11 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
11.07.2018 WP 14552 (W) of 2017
Court No. 04
Item No. SL - 77 Dr. Satyadeo Prasad & Anr.
snandy Vs.
(ORDER PASSED)
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anurag Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty, Advocate
......for the Petitioner
Mr. Joydip Kar, Senior Advocate
Ms. Aparajit Rao, Advocate
Ms. P. Gandhi, Advocate
......for the Respondent no. 5
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP Mr. Debasish Basu, Advocate ......for the State Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate ......for the UGC Mr. Ojha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners, resumes his submissions. He reiterates his principal argument to be based on law declared by Supreme Court regarding opportunity being given to probationer to improve himself. There can be no termination without such opportunity given. His second point was regarding discrimination. A similarly situated probationer was given notice to improve herself but same was not done in case of petitioners. His submissions on these points have already been recorded.
Today Mr. Ojha, relies on two judgments of learned single Judges of different High Courts in support of his first point. The first is in the case of Ms. Chaula Kuruwa Vs. Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. & Ors., decided on 11th March, 1991 by High Court of Gujarat. He relies on paragraphs 8, 9, 11 and 14. Clear view taken was probationer must be put on notice, not only on deficiencies or unsuitability but by giving particulars. The other judgment is Saroj Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 15th March, 2010 by High Court of Gauhati, paragraphs 18 & 19.
2On point of discrimination he relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Astamija Dash reported in (2008) 14 SCC 370, to paragraphs 37 & 40.
He then moves on to his last point regarding stigma. He submits, it is not necessary in adjudication of stigma for termination letter to carry words that are stigmatic. Surrounding circumstances leading upto issue of termination letter might constitute stigma as does in case of his clients. He refers to paragraph 10 of the writ-petition where petitioner no. 2 has said about beginning of his falling out with respondent no. 4, head of concerned department in the university. Incident referred to in said paragraph happened on 26th August, 2016. Subsequent thereto respondent no. 4 by electronic mail (email) dated 25th November, 2016 had alleged as follows:-
"This is to inform you that all the students of UG 3rd semester are very agitated with the question paper 0301 (Swatantrottar Hindi Kavita) of ODD semester Examination held on 22nd November, 2016. The have reported me that they could not answer the paper properly. But I feel that the students can easily answer the questions based on prescribed poems. Even the students admitted that the question paper was not tough. They informed me that though the syllabus was not completed by you, you told them to study only taught poems. You also told them that the questions will be only on those poems in the examination which you have taught them. Students have followed you instructions. As there are questions in the paper on the poems not taught by you, they could not answer them. This is the violation of the rules of the examination. The names of the paper setter and the examiner are highly confidential. You cannot inform these to the students and also ca not leak out the selected topics of the question paper. I want clarification from you in this 3 regard within seven days.
I remind you that when the students had reported me of non-completion of you syllabus in October 2016, I instructed you to complete the syllabus and take extra classes on Saturday and holidays. I also want to know the number of allotted and extra classes taken by you in the last semester."
He submits, his client almost immediately replied by letter dated 27th November, 2016. Serious allegation of leaking question papers was made after which comes letter of termination. This is stigmatic and entitles his clients to a departmental enquiry. He submits, this contention is without prejudice to his earlier two points taken.
For stigma, he relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1974) 2 SCC 831. There were two concurring views in that judgment. In first view per Ray, CJI, he relies on paragraphs 62 to 64 and 83 to 90. In second view per Krisha Iyer, J, to paragraphs 158 to 161. He concludes his submissions.
List on Friday i.e. July 18, 2018.
(Arindam Sinha, J.) 4