Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shelley Bhattacharya vs Visva-Bharati University & Ors on 30 May, 2011
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
/5/2011
A.S.T. No. 311 of 2011
Shelley Bhattacharya
-vs-
Visva-Bharati University & Ors.
Mr. Pranab Kumar Datta
Mr. Kaushik Dey
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Subrata Talukdar
Mr. S. Chatterjee
Mr. M. K. Seal
Mr. A. Mitra ... for the University
The University authority of Visva Bharati decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner who is
the Head of the Department of Zoology, Shiksha-Bhavana under statute 20.0 of Visva Bharati. Accordingly,
a charge-sheet was issued containing the following charges:-
Article-I. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology , Siksha-Bhavana was involved in
breaching of the confidentiality of the Executive Council and failed to safeguard the security of confidential
information which she had access of official duty.
Article-II. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made unauthorized
communication to the electronic media named 'Khoj Khabor.'
Article-III. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana has maligned the
office of the Vice-Chancellor and Visva-Bharati administration."
The petitioner was called upon to submit a written statement of defence before the concerned
authority within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum containing the articles of charges.
The petitioner was also informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of the articles of charges,
which will not be admitted by her. Accordingly, she was called upon to specifically admit or deny the
articles of charges in her written statement. She was further informed that if she does not submit her written
statement of defence on or before the date specified in para 2 of the said memorandum or does not appear in
person before the enquiry authority, the enquiry authority may hold the enquiry against her ex parte.
2
Upon receipt of the said charge-sheet the petitioner submitted her written statement of defence
indicating therein that though she submitted the said written statement of defence, but she was not
submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the said enquiry officer.
The petitioner ultimately challenged the legality of the said department proceedings by filing a writ
petition before this Court and the said writ petition which was registered as W.P. No. 8097(W) of 2011 was
admitted for hearing by a single Judge of this Court on 18.5.2011 when an interim order was passed by his
Lordship whereby the respondents, their men, against and servants were restrained from holding any
enquiry against the petitioner. The University authority has not challenged the said interim order passed by his Lordship in appeal. Thus, they accepted the said interim order. However, subsequently the University authority served a notice upon the petitioner on 20.5.2011 intimating that the charge-sheet which was issued to her earlier was withdrawn. But at the same time the University authority issued another charge-sheet containing articles of charges framed against her and invited the petitioner to reply to the said charge-sheet within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the said letter. On perusal of the said charge-sheet this Court finds that the following articles of charges were framed by the University authority against the petitioner :
"Article-I. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology , Siksha-Bhavana was involved in breaching of the confidentiality of the Executive Council and failed to safeguard the security of confidential information which she had access of official duty.
Article-II. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made unauthorized communication to the electronic media named 'Khoj Khabo.'/ Article-III. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana has maligned the office of the Vice-Chancellor and Visva-Bharati administration."
This Court thus finds that though the University authority accepted the interim order of injunction passed by a learned single Judge of this Court as mentioned above and in fact has withdrawn the said charge-sheet and thereby practically abandoned the said departmental proceeding, but simultaneously they started another departmental proceeding for enquiring into the very same and identical charges on which they wanted to proceed earlier. If these two Articles of charges are read simultaneously, then this Court finds that not only the wordings of those two set of charges are exactly identical, but also the order of use of commas and full stops in and in between the sentences in both the aforesaid set of charges were also maintained in the same position. In fact, the articles of charges in the present departmental proceeding are the verbatim copy of the articles of charges of the earlier departmental proceeding.
It is pointed out by Mr Talukdar that withdrawal of the charge-sheet by the authority does not preclude them from proceeding afresh on the very same charges against the delinquent employee. Though this Court basically and principally accepts such submission of Mr Talukdar, but this Court holds that in 3 this set of facts where the injunction order is operating against the University authorities, they cannot be permitted to proceed with the impugned departmental proceeding for enquiring into the charges against the petitioner, as the University authorities have been restrained for holding any enquiry against the petitioner till 31st August, 2011 by an interim order of injunction passed by this Court in the earlier pending writ petition as aforesaid.
Under such circumstances this Court holds that when the interim order of injunction is still in operation, the University authority ought not to have ventured to proceed with the said departmental proceedings for enquiring into the identical charges which they have withdrawn by accepting the interim order passed in the earlier writ petition. The university authorities should not forget the fundamentals of law to the effect that what they cannot do directly because of the order of injunction, cannot be done by them indirectly.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a strong prima facie case for consideration of the dispute on merit. Thus, this Court passes an interim order of injunction by restraining the University authorities, their men, agent and servants from proceeding with the impugned departmental proceeding till 30-06-2011 with liberty to the petitinoer to pray for execution of such interim orderbefore the appropriate Bench, on the self same application with notice to the respondent. Leave is granted to the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition by 15-6-2011; reply, if any, be filed by 22.6.2011. Let this matter appear before the regular bench on 24.6.2011.
Let the affidavit of service filed in court today, be kept with the records.
Urgent certified xerox of this order shall be given to the parties, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J)