The Calcutta High Court has quashed a preliminary enquiry and statements of allegations containing 93 charges against one Bagnan College teacher and 70 against another, holding that several allegations concerning unauthorised absence, attendance violations, service and academic records, promotions and alleged irregularities were either vague, frivolous or so stale that they could not reasonably be answered after decades.

Justice Jay Sengupta observed that the proceedings, viewed against the backdrop of earlier litigation and disputes between the teachers and the college Principal, “smacks of mala fide and vindictiveness.”

The Court held that although notices requiring employees to participate in a preliminary enquiry would ordinarily not warrant judicial interference, such notices must nevertheless be fair, proper, non-harassive and issued bona fide.

“First, it is a settled position of law that notices asking employees to attend and be heard during preliminary enquiry proceedings are ordinarily not to be interfered with. However, there are certain underlying assumptions behind this proposition,” the Court observed.

It added that the allegations and notices must be examined where allegations of bias and mala fides are raised, particularly since a coordinate Bench had earlier intervened in the dispute and set aside previous notices issued against the teachers.

Background Of Dispute

The dispute arose against the backdrop of several earlier litigations between the teachers and the Principal of Bagnan College, Dr. Badal Kumar Maity.

The petitioners alleged that the Principal had acted vindictively against them after he faced disciplinary proceedings and suspension following an earlier dispute. They also alleged that a police complaint lodged against them subsequently resulted in a final report discharging them for lack of evidence.

Earlier, the teachers had challenged notices issued by a Preliminary Enquiry Committee in May and June 2023. On June 9, 2023, a coordinate Bench had found that the notice contained no specific allegations and was too vague to sustain even a preliminary enquiry. The notices were consequently set aside.

Despite this, fresh proceedings were initiated. The subsequent statement of allegations allegedly contained 93 charges against Mukhopadhyay and 70 charges against Basu.

The Court noted that some of the allegations related to events several decades earlier.

Charges Dating Back Decades

Examining the allegations against Mukhopadhyay, the Court found that one charge alleged that she had left the college early on different occasions between 2001 and 2015, without specifying the dates.

“It would be absolutely ludicrous to seek an answer now about whether the petitioner actually left early two unspecified days in the year 2001 at 1.50 pm and at 2.40 pm,” the Court remarked.

Another allegation concerned failure to sign attendance registers between 1992 and 1997. The Court observed that the relevant registers were required to be maintained by the authorities and that it would hardly be possible for the teacher to respond to such allegations at this stage.

The Court also referred to an allegation that Mukhopadhyay had attended the college during the COVID-19 period with a “malicious intention”, observing that it would be impossible for a teacher to effectively counter such an allegation.

Similarly, the 70 allegations against Basu included allegations concerning attendance during unspecified dates between 2001 and 2017, unauthorised absence during several years dating back to 1991, and alleged exercise of personal influence in obtaining a UGC pay scale.

The Court described these allegations as “as vague and speculative as can be.”

'No Staff Should Be Made To Answer Such Vague Questions At Fag End Of Career'

Justice Sengupta observed that several allegations concerned unauthorised absence dating back decades, without even specifying the dates.

“These are patently stale charges and cannot possibly be answered by any person after passage of such long period of time,” the Court said.

The Court added that even some of the more recent allegations were vague or frivolous and that “no staff working for so long for a college should unnecessarily be made to answer these vague and trivial questions at the fag end of their careers.”

The Court took into account the history of litigation and disputes between the parties and held that the circumstances surrounding the proceedings strengthened the petitioners' allegation of mala fide.

“It prima facie appears that the allegations are exceedingly harrassive, some vague, some frivolous and some absolutely stale and in view of the earlier litigations including the writ petitions and criminal case that had existed between the parties, the entire exercise smacks of mala fide and vindictiveness,” the Court held.

Court Warns Against Abuse Of Public Power

The Court stressed that public office carries responsibilities along with the powers vested in the office-holder.

“When an individual assumes an office dealing with public duties, certain responsibilities come along with the powers that he exercises,” Justice Sengupta observed.

“If such person chooses to abuse such power in order to settle personal scores which impinges upon the fundamental rights of citizens of this country, this Court would be at liberty to intervene ex debito justitiae,” the Court added.

Holding that the allegations did not meet the standards of a fair and proper notice for answering charges in a preliminary enquiry, the Court concluded that the teachers were not required to answer the “patently harrassive, some vague, some frivolous and some stale” allegations, particularly at the fag end of their careers.

The Court accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned notices and statements of allegations and disposed of both writ petitions

Case: Soma Mukhopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: WPA 26374 of 2023

Click here to read order