Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Professor Jitendra Nath Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 June, 2020
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
1
25th June,
2020
(AK)
9
W.P. 5467(W) of 2020
CAN 3167 of 2020
CAN 3168 of 2020
Professor Jitendra Nath Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kollol Bose
Mr. Chiranjib Sinha
...For the Petitioner
Mr. Arunagdhu Chakraborty
Ms. Pragati Paul
...For the Respondent University
The petitioner is aggrieved by decisions signed by the Vice- Chancellor of Kazi Nazrul Islam University.
The initial order asking the petitioner to show cause for alleged acts of Commission and Commission was issued on 3rd March, 2020 in reply thereto time was sought by the petitioner. On 18th March, 2020 the Vice-Chancellor of the University extended the time to reply but debarred the petitioner from discharging his duties in the capacity of Dean of Post- Graduate studies in Science Technology and Vocational Service, until satisfactory replies are submitted.
2The Vice-Chancellor has alleged that the petitioner had leaked certain information to outsiders as regards a selection process to the post of Assistant Professor Physics.
A separate writ petition is pending before this court in connection with such selection being W.P. 23093(W) of 2019 (Sanjay Kumar Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The selection process was interfered with.
Two questions arise for the consideration of this Court i.e. as to whether a show cause leading to a departmental enquiry can be issued to the petitioner by the Vice-Chancellor himself under the provisions of the Kazi Nazrul Islam University Act of 2012 and secondly, whether the Vice- Chancellor can issue any order of debarment of a Dean.
It is evident and clear from the submissions made by Mr. Kallol Bose appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the University that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Executive Council of the University. The Vice-Chancellor is indeed a member of the Executive Council. The Executive Council should also have the power of suspension of and to proceed departmentally against the petitioner if so deemed necessary.
The expression debarment clearly does not find place in the statute. Mr. Chakraborty appearing for University however relies upon emergency powers vested in the Vice-Chancellor, under which the order of debarment has been allegedly issued.
3
Those emergency powers however cannot override the specific provision under Section 21 which Mr. Bose asserts is the power to hold Enquiry and issue orders of suspension.
Having considered the rival contentions to the parties, there appears some infirmity in the steps initiated by the Vice-Chancellor under his signature on the Letter Heads of the University against the petitioner.
The source of such powers by the V.C. remains unexplained. This Court is therefore of the clear view that any decision on the conduct of the petitioner that the University may find prima facie entitling them to proceed against the petitioner must be exercised strictly in accordance with the 2012 Act.
In those circumstances, this court deems it necessary to place the matter of proposed action, if any, against the petitioner before the Executive Council of the University. The Executive Council with appropriate quorum shall take an appropriate decision within the meaning of the 2012 Act as regards the steps if any against the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from date.
The aforesaid steps may include issuance of show cause notice, departmental enquiry and suspension. A reasoned order may be passed by the executive council in this regard.
However, considering the fact that the petitioner's salary and allowance have not been disturbed or reduced in any manner by the 4 University, the petitioner shall for a period of two weeks from date not participate in any of his duties as a Dean faculty of science.
The order that may be passed by the executive council shall be communicated to the petitioner immediately thereafter by e-mail and as also in physical form.
W.P. 5467(W) of 2020 is disposed of and the connected application being CAN 3167 of 2020 and CAN 3168 of 2020 is also disposed of.
Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)