Enquiry Report By Sitting HC Judge In Administrative Capacity Is Not Judicial Order, Cannot Be Referred To Larger Bench: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that a disciplinary enquiry report prepared by a sitting High Court judge in his administrative capacity is not a judicial order, and therefore a writ petition challenging such a report does not warrant hearing by a Bench of two or more Judges.
Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra was hearing a writ petition filed by Rajender Kumar Dudeja challenging disciplinary proceedings and an enquiry report against him. The petitioner had argued that the matter ought to be heard by a larger Bench under Chapter V Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court.
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the provision does not mandate that matters falling within its scope must be placed before a larger Bench. Rather, it is a directory guideline under which a Single Judge may refer a matter if the Court finds that it can be heard "more advantageously" by a Bench of two or more Judges.
The petitioner had principally relied on the fact that the enquiry report under challenge had been authored by a sitting Judge of the High Court. He argued that judicial propriety and discipline required the matter to be placed before a larger Bench, and that the matter involved "serious questions of law".
The Court, however, rejected this reasoning, observing that it was not sitting in appeal over a judicial order passed by another Single Judge.
"However, it is not as if this Court is sitting in appeal over a judicial order passed by another Single Judge. This is impermissible in law and would result in judicial indiscipline," Justice Mitra held.
The Court explained that the judge who prepared the enquiry report had acted in an administrative capacity and not while exercising judicial functions.
"This enquiry report has been made by a learned Single Judge in his administrative capacity. This is not a judicial order," the Court said.
The Bench further observed that had the enquiry report been a judicial order, an appeal would have been the prescribed course. However, there was nothing in the Original Side Rules or service jurisprudence which provided for an appeal against an order of an enquiry authority in such circumstances.
"The enquiry report is merely the communication of a finding by an enquiry authority and not a judicial pronouncement of any Judge, discharging judicial function," the Court held.
The petitioner had also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors., reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12, to contend that judicial propriety and discipline warranted consideration by a larger Bench.
Justice Mitra said that he respectfully agreed with the proposition laid down in Mary Pushpam, but held that the judgment had no application to the present case.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court judgment concerned a judicial order and the binding effect of precedent, whereas the present case involved only an enquiry report prepared in an administrative capacity.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had not raised the issue of a larger Bench before the earlier coordinate Bench, despite claiming to have made elaborate submissions on the merits before that Bench.
"Surprisingly this issue had never been raised by the petitioner before the earlier co-ordinate Bench, before whom the petitioner alleges he had concluded his submission," the Court observed.
Rejecting the petitioner's argument that the matter involved "serious questions of law", the Court observed that he had not submitted that he lacked confidence in the Single Bench to deal with such questions.
"Hence, the issue of this Bench not being in a position to hear and determine and, indeed, decide a serious question of law does not arise," the Court said.
The Court ultimately held that there was no ground to conclude that the matter could be heard more advantageously by a Bench of two or more Judges.
"In view of the afore-stated, I hold that the instant petition should be heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court," Justice Mitra ruled.
The Court accordingly directed the respondent to file its affidavit-in-opposition by October 15, 2026, with the petitioner permitted to file a reply by November 13. The matter was directed to be listed for hearing on November 20, 2026.
Case: SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR DUDEJA -VERSUS- HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AND ANR
Case No: WPO/101/2025