REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

RESERVED ON: 14.05.2026

DELIVERED ON: 21.05.2026

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA

WPA 6468 OF 2026

KUNTAL GHOSH

- VERSUS –

INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Mr. Kallol Basu, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Suman Banerjee, Ld. Adv.

….. for the Applicant/Petitioner

Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha Tiwari, Ld. Adv.

Ms. Biswadeepa Mondal, Ld. Adv.

... for the Respondents

REPORTABLE

Page 2 of 34

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.:

1. The initiation of a disciplinary proceeding, against the petitioner is

under challenge in the present writ petition. The proceeding is still at

a nascent stage.

2. A brief enumeration of the facts is essential to appreciate the issue

raised in this writ petition.

3. The petitioner is an associate professor in the Indian Statistical

Institute (hereinafter, ‘ISI’), the respondent no. 1.

4. The petitioner was part of a group of persons who had created

mayhem while a meeting of the PiCH&D Committee was in progress

in the office of the Director of ISI on October 7, 2025. To de-

escalate the issue, the Officiating Director had relented and called

for a meeting of 5 members from the group in the office of the

Director. The petitioner was one of the five who attended the

meeting with the Officiating Director. During the

conversation/meeting, the petitioner became extremely aggressive

and behaved in an abrasive and abusive manner. In fact, the

REPORTABLE

Page 3 of 34

petitioner’s conduct was allegedly derogatory, humiliating and almost

hinged on violating the modesty of the Officiating Director, a lady.

5. Amongst others members present in the room, was the Deputy

Director.

6. It is this Deputy Director who had subsequently lodged a complaint

with the Officiating Director on October 15, 2025, which was duly

received by the Officiating Director.

7. Though the Director is the designated Disciplinary Authority, since

she was one of the central figures of the incident, she recused herself

from the process and the procedure.

8. On her recusal, the Chief Executive Officer (Administration and

Finance) of ISI with the approval of the Chairman of the Council of

ISI issued a letter on November 11, 2025, intimating all concerned

that Professor Pallab Banerji, Professor of IIT Kharagpur of Higher

Administrative Grade (HAG) and a member of the Council of ISI

had been appointed as the disciplinary authority (hereinafter the

DA). This step had been taken with the approval of the Chairman,

as the next highest authority in the organisational hierarchy as the

REPORTABLE

Page 4 of 34

Officiating Director, the designated DA, had recused herself from

the matter.

9. It is in these circumstances that Professor Banerjee, hereinafter

respondent no. 5, as the DA had issued a show cause notice to which

a reply was given by the petitioner on November 26, 2025, without in

any manner challenging the jurisdictional capability or the authority

of the respondent no. 5 to issue such notice. In fact, subsequent

letters of December 15, 2025 and January 16, 2026 were also bereft

of the allegation that the respondent no. 5 did not have any

jurisdiction to initiate any action against the petitioner.

10. In the meanwhile, between the two replies of the petitioner of

December 15, 2025 and January 16, 2026, the respondent no. 5 on

January 9, 2026 had issued the chargesheet containing the articles of

charge.

11. A notice was issued on March 11, 2026 by the respondent no. 5

through the Registrar of ISI that the first hearing would take place on

March 18, 2026. The writ petition was filed on March 16, 2026.

REPORTABLE

Page 5 of 34

12. It is these articles of charge and the mode and the manner in which

the same were issued that have been questioned and challenged in

this writ petition.

13. Kallol Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has

primarily raised two issues, namely: (i) jurisdictional deficiency; and

(ii) bias and premeditated mind of the Disciplinary Authority (DA):

i. Re: Jurisdictional Deficiency:

a. The jurisdictional deficiency of the Chairman

of the Council to appoint the respondent no. 5

as the DA. Thus, since this appointment itself

is bad, the entire proceeding is vitiated.

b. The second limb of the jurisdictional issue

emanates from the first limb, that the

respondent no. 5, not being properly

appointed cannot act as the DA on account

whereof, any or all steps taken by him are

dehors the provisions guiding the disciplinary

proceeding and hence liable to be set aside.

REPORTABLE

Page 6 of 34

c. The jurisdictional deficiency stems from the

fact that clause 10 of the Standing Service

Order 1963 of the Indian Statistical Institute

(hereinafter the said Order) read with

Appendix II specifies that the disciplinary

authority for the delinquent officer in the rank

of the petitioner would be the Director and the

appellate authority would be a person one

stage above the Director. Thus the Director is

the designated Disciplinary Authority for any

disciplinary proceeding in respect of persons

who are similarly situated as the petitioner.

d. The Chairman of the Council ought not to

have appointed the Officiating Director, in

view of the provisions of the Indian Statistical

Institute Act, 1959 which specifies that the

Council which has to be constituted in terms

of clause 5.5.1 consisting of several groups of

representatives.

REPORTABLE

Page 7 of 34

e. Clause 5.3.6 specifies that it is the Director

from amongst the officers of the institute who

will be a part of the Council. The Officiating

Director is not part of the council. There is no

question therefore of an Officiating Director

being appointed or being a DA in respect of

such disciplinary proceeding as against this

petitioner. Thus, the instant proceeding is

completely vitiated.

f. In terms of Clause 11.2.1 of the Standing

Service Order 1963, proceeding for

punishment referred under Clause 10.1 can be

initiated in respect of a worker under whose

direction and control the worker works. This

should be the guiding provision in so far as the

petitioner is concerned. The petitioner being

an associate professor in the Machine

Intelligence Unit, it is the head of the Machine

Intelligence Unit or the divisional head who is

the person under whose direction and control

the petitioner works. Thus, it is this head of

REPORTABLE

Page 8 of 34

the division who is empowered to initiate

proceedings against the petitioner. The

proceeding initiated herein has been done by a

person appointed by the Chief Administrative

Officer with the approval of the Chairman,

which is clearly a violation of the

aforementioned provision of Clause 11.2.1.

g. The complaint on the basis of which the

proceedings were initiated, is untenable. It is

untenable as the complaint was not made by

the Officiating Director against whom the

allegation/charges have been leveled against

the petitioner, but by a Deputy Director who

was present when the incident occurred.

ii. Re: Bias And Premeditated Mind Of The Disciplinary

Authority (DA):

a. The articles of charge as framed in the charge-

sheet are biased as the authority framing the

charges had already made up his mind and

REPORTABLE

Page 9 of 34

had proceeded with a closed mind that the

petitioner was guilty of the articles of charge on

account whereof the articles have been set

forth in a manner to implicate the petitioner of

the charges.

b. The proceedings are also vitiated by the fact

that the Officiating Director does not feature

as a witness, in the list of witnesses as

produced in the articles of charges, issued by

the respondent no. 5 on January 9, 2026.

c. The bias stems from the fact that the petitioner

had challenged the appointment of the

disciplinary authority, the respondent no. 5

herein on account whereof, the said

respondent no. 5 had acted in a manner which

is retributory in nature, which is apparent from

the manner in which the articles of charge

have been framed. The articles of charge have

been framed with a closed and premeditated

REPORTABLE

Page 10 of 34

mind that the petitioner is indeed guilty of the

charges levelled against him.

d. The articles of charge are also vitiated in view

of the fact that the charges proceeded to seek

an explanation from the petitioner in regard to

the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,

1964 (hereinafter, ‘CCS (Conduct) Rules’).

Thus, the charges are bad since the CCS

(Conduct) Rules do not apply to the petitioner

in any manner whatsoever.

e. The petitioner relies upon the following

judicial precedents in support of his case:

i. B.S. Minhas vs Indian Statistical

Institute & Ors., 1983 4 SCC 582,

paragraphs 23 and 24;

ii. Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of

India & Ors., 2010 13 SCC 427,

paragraphs 31 to 34;

REPORTABLE

Page 11 of 34

iii. Profulla Kumar Ghosh v. State &

Another, 2013 2 CHN (CAL) 171,

paragraph 12; and

iv. The judgment of the Hon’ble

Allahabad High Court rendered in

Suchitra Mitra and Ors v. Union of

India and Ors, Writ A No. 4178 of

2015.

14. Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, learned senior advocate appearing for the

ISI, has made the following submissions:

i. The Chairman of the Council has the authority to appoint

an Officiating Director for a period of six months from

amongst the professors or scientists of equivalent rank or

above in the institute. This stipulation is found in the Bye-

laws of the ISI Act, 1959. Bye-law 6.5.3 thereof is clear

and unequivocal that the Chairman has the right in case

of an emergency to appoint an Officiating Director. It is

while exercising such right that the Chairman of the

Council appointed Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay, who

REPORTABLE

Page 12 of 34

demitted the office as the Director of ISI, to continue as

the Officiating Director with effect from September 29,

2025, till the expiry of the period of 6 months.

ii. Thus the Chairman of the Council has rightly appointed

the Officiating Director.

iii. Since the Officiating Director herself had been the centre

of the incident which has given rise to the disciplinary

proceeding against the petitioner, she rightly recused

herself from the process. It was only thereafter that the

Chairman through the Chief Administrative Officer

appointed the respondent no. 5 as the alternate DA.

iv. The authority to do this finds credence from the fact that

the Standing Service Order, 1963 (hereinafter the Order

of 1963) stipulates that a member of the Council of the

institute or the governing body not being an employee of

the institution shall be deemed as a person above the rank

of any employee of the institute. Though this relates to

the Order of 1963, it is equally applicable to a disciplinary

proceeding. Thus, the respondent no. 5, the DA

REPORTABLE

Page 13 of 34

appointed by the Chairman being a member of the

Council of a Higher Administrative Grade and a

professor of the IIT Kharagpur, clearly falls within the

scope of the aforesaid definition and is a person, by way

of the deeming provision, to be above the rank of any

employee of the institute. Thus, there is no jurisdictional

deficiency here either.

v. The Standing Service Order, 1963 specifies in Appendix

II that in so far as the disciplinary proceedings are

concerned it is the Director who is the DA. Since the DA

is not available due to her recusal, the next highest

authority has appointed another person (respondent no.5)

as the DA.

vi. The articles of charge issued by the respondent no. 5 are

merely a statement and do not implicate the charges on

the petitioner. They are merely imputation of the charges

alone. Thus, there is no question of bias.

vii. The petitioner as an employee of the ISI is covered by

Appendix IV of the Standing Service Orders of 1963.

REPORTABLE

Page 14 of 34

Clause 5.1 thereof has specifically indicated that “where

there are no existing orders or accepted convention in the

institute, relevant rules of the Government of India would

be deemed to be applicable until other provisions are

made by the institute”. Since there are no rules which

have been made, the petitioner is guided by these

particular rules at Appendix IV, on account whereof the

articles of charge have been rightly framed by the

respondent no. 5 as the DA.

viii. He has relied on the following decisions in support of his

arguments:

a. 1999 1 SCC 183 paragraph 2;

b. 2006 12 SCC 28 paragraph 16;

c. 2010 13 SCC 427 paragraph 36; and

d. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 676 paragraphs 11, 20

to 26.

REPORTABLE

Page 15 of 34

15. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and the

decisions relied upon by them, and also considered the documents

on record and the relevant Service Orders.

16. A celebrated institute such as the Indian Statistical Institute which

was established sometime in 1932, has over a period of time

assumed a place of significance in the academic world not just in

India, but worldwide. It is known not just for its academic excellence

and the alumni it boasts but also for the discipline which it instills in

such students. On account thereof, the institute has now been

identified as an institute of national importance.

17. It is only logical, if not mandatory, that persons responsible for such

a hallowed institution as the ISI, the faculty, should be adorned not

just by academicians of repute and distinction but at the same time of

discipline, decorum and integrity.

18. It is in this backdrop that the case of the petitioner has come to light.

The petitioner, an Associate Professor in the Department of

Machine Intelligence Unit, serving since 2007, having joined initially

as a lecturer and risen in the ranks to an Associate Professor, ought

REPORTABLE

Page 16 of 34

to have handled the situation, with more dignity, decorum and

discipline.

19. A complaint by the Deputy Director against the petitioner that he

had behaved in a particular manner while attending a meeting in the

office of the Officiating Director, which was itself called to de-

escalate the situation, of which the petitioner was a part, is a matter

which will be decided by the concerned authority.

20. The root of the main dispute is something quite beyond the ambit of

this writ petition.

21. The petitioner’s grievance is far more simple and straightforward.

22. In a disciplinary proceeding of this nature, being conducted by a

quasi-judicial authority or body, certain issues are sine qua non for a

proper proceeding to be conducted:

i. Such a body has to act within the framework of the statute

by which it is established and the rules and regulations

thereto.

REPORTABLE

Page 17 of 34

ii. The object of the show cause notice is to give a

reasonable opportunity to the noticee to raise his

objection to the proposed charges. It must seem to the

noticee that he would get a fair opportunity of establishing

his defence and making his objection before the

concerned authority.

iii. The entire purpose of a show cause notice and the

articles of charge is to ensure that the noticee, as a

reasonably prudent person, would not feel that he would

not get justice before the concerned authority and that

such authority would deal with his objection/defence with

an unbiased approach and mind and would deal with the

defence in a fair manner.

iv. He must not get the impression from the notice or the

articles of charge that his defence is an idol formality as

the concerned authority has already made up its mind

regarding his guilt.

v. Hence, the authority issuing the show cause notice and

framing the articles of charge has to take a cautious

REPORTABLE

Page 18 of 34

approach and act in a manner which would give a

manifest impression of their unbiased mind insofar as the

noticee is concerned.

23. It would be worthwhile to advert to the issue of jurisdictional

deficiency first as that goes to the root of the matter. In fact, in terms

of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Oryx

Fisheries (Supra), this is about the only ground on which a

disciplinary proceeding can be assailed at the stage of chargesheet. If

the concerned DA is not empowered or entitled to initiate the

disciplinary proceeding, any further progression by the same DA

would be a redundant measure.

24. The court while exercising jurisdiction of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to bear in mind that a

disciplinary proceeding will have to reach its logical conclusion

through the authority itself. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in several decisions, the only ground on which a disciplinary

proceeding can be challenged at the stage of issuance of show cause

notice and/or framing of charges is that there is a jurisdictional

deficiency of the authority to issue such notice or charge-sheet. Thus,

since the petitioner in this case has raised these two issues, this writ

REPORTABLE

Page 19 of 34

petition is entertained. The question that remains to be adjudicated

is whether indeed there was jurisdictional deficiency of the

disciplinary authority and whether the charge-sheet framed by the

DA reeks of any bias.

25. It is not in dispute that the designated DA for persons situated as the

petitioner and the petitioner himself, under Rule 10 read with

Appendix II is the Director of the institution. The process for

appointment of a Director has been laid down in no uncertain terms

in Clause 2 of the Bye-laws. The appointment of the Director of the

establishment shall be made by the Council on the recommendation

of a selection committee. This selection committee will consist of

three persons, the Chairman of the Council (as Chairman) and two

experts approved by the Council. However, the power to appoint the

Officiating Director is vested exclusively in the Chairman under

Clause 6.5.3 of the Bye-laws. Since this is a measure in case of an

emergency, the tenure of such an Officiating Director has been

limited to a period of six months. The Regulations, Bye-laws,

Standing Orders or the Act does not differentiate between Director

or Officiating Director.

REPORTABLE

Page 20 of 34

26. There is no bar, in the Bye-laws, Memorandum, Standing Orders,

Regulations, or curtailment on the Officiating Director while

discharging all duties and functions which are vested in the Director.

The Officiating Director thus acts as the head of the institution in the

same capacity, exercising the same powers as that of the Director.

Acting as the designated DA is one of the duties cast upon and

meant to be discharged by the Director. Thus, the Officiating

Director, while holding office, is meant to act as the DA, if the

situation so demands. The term “officiating” merely denotes that the

incumbent is holding the post on account of an appointment by the

Chairman of the Council due to an emergent situation for the limited

tenure of six months. This does not curtail the powers of the

Officiating Director as no such curtailment has been referred to in

the aforesaid applicable Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations and Act. Thus,

the insinuation by the petitioner that the Officiating Director is not

the Director and therefore does not qualify to be the designated DA,

is unacceptable.

27. In this case, the Officiating Director herself being the central figure

in the entire episode, under no circumstances could initiate or

proceed with the Disciplinary Proceeding against the petitioner.

Therefore, the Director had recused herself as the DA in so far as

REPORTABLE

Page 21 of 34

the complaint by the Deputy Director is concerned against the

petitioner.

28. This would have left a void and would not permit any proceeding to

be initiated or progressed as against the petitioner. To tide over this

stalemate, the Chairman of the Council approved the present

incumbent as an alternate DA. The only issue would be whether the

present incumbent had the credentials to be appointed as the DA.

29. The Chief Executive by his order of November 11, 2025 appointed

a Professor of Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) of IIT

Kharagpur and member of the Council, ISI (2024-2026), as the DA.

It is this DA, appointed by the Chief Executive, who has acted as the

DA and issued the articles of charge dated January 9, 2026. At this

juncture, it is important to note the administrative structure of the

ISI:

a. The Director is the principal executive officer of the

institute and the head of all its academic and

administrative activities. The Director is responsible for

the administration of affairs of the institute subject to the

control of the Council.

REPORTABLE

Page 22 of 34

b. The Council has approximately 33 members amongst

whom there are 6 government representatives from

various departments, 9 scientists who are not employed in

the institute, 2 elected representatives of the employees of

the institute and 12 ex-officio officers of the institute,

which include the Director.

c. The Council in its first meeting shall elect an eminent

person who is not an employee of the institute as

Chairperson of the Council to preside over all meetings

of the Council.

d. Clause 5.4 and 5.5 are also of relevance and rather

germane for the present purpose. Clause 5.4 clothes the

Chief Administrative Officer as the principal officer in

overall charge of the general administration of the

institute. Clause 5.5 stipulates that though the Council

consists of 33 members, 9 members are enough to form a

quorum for any meeting. Clause 6 specifies that the

Director shall be the principal executive officer of the

institute and the head of all its academic and

administrative activities.

REPORTABLE

Page 23 of 34

30. Thus, the administration of the institute is bifurcated into three

distinct parts. First, the general administration, which will be under

the exclusive domain of the Chief Administrative Officer. The

academic part of which the Director will have full control as the

Principal Executive Officer of the institute. The third is the

administrative part, culled out in a manner that the Director would

also be the head of the administrative activities of the academic part.

This part of the administration of the affairs of the institute has been

made subject to the control of the Council. Thus, administration

insofar as the institution is concerned is the domain of the Chief

Executive Officer and administration of the academic part of the

institute is the domain of the Director subject to the control of the

Council.

31. The administration of the institute not relating to the academic part

of the institute is to be looked after by the Chief Executive Officer. It

is in discharge of this administrative function that the Chief Executive

Officer had communicated the decision of the Chairman to appoint

the respondent no. 5 as the disciplinary authority for the case of the

petitioner on November 11, 2025. The Chief Executive Officer has

acted well within his jurisdiction and in consonance with the powers

vested in him while making such an appointment. This appointment

REPORTABLE

Page 24 of 34

was necessitated in view of the Director/Officiating Director who is

the designated DA, having recused herself, being a central figure of

the entire incident.

32. The appointment of a DA in the absence of the designated DA is,

without an iota of doubt, within the domain of administrative

function of the institution. This does not form a part of the academic

function nor does it form a part of the administrative function

relating to academic activities.

33. Further, Clause 11.2.1 of the Order of 1963 will have to be given a

harmonious construction. The petitioner as an associate professor in

the Machine Intelligence Unit cannot be said to be under the

direction and control of the divisional/unit head or head of the

department. This interpretation would be absolutely contrary to

Appendix II of the Order of 1963 which specifies that the DA would

be the Director. In fact, Clause 11.2.1 also states that the charge-

sheets shall be issued by the persons as indicated in Appendix II.

Hence, to give a harmonious construction to Clause 11.2.1 of the

Standing Service Orders, 1963, it will have to be read in a manner

which is in consonance with Appendix II. Appendix II specifies the

Director to be the DA. Since the designated DA was unavailable,

REPORTABLE

Page 25 of 34

due to her recusal, the next highest authority was the Chairman of

the Council, had duly appointed the respondent no. 5 as the DA in

place and instead of the designated DA. This appointment was

merely communicated by the Chief Administrative Officer by his

office order dated November 11, 2025.

34. The rules specify that the desiganted DA for a person like the

petitioner would be the Director. However, there is no other

provision except for that contained in 12(4) of the Service Orders of

1963 which deals with an appeal where, in cases of similar nature;

where the appellate authority finds that owing to other engagements

it would not be possible for him to take up a matter, he may

authorize any other person above the rank of the authority which

issued the initial orders to hear and dispose of the appeal. This

“other person” has been defined in the “Note” to Clause 12.4 as a

member of the Council of the institute or of the Governing Body not

being an employee of the Institute, for such purpose this person shall

be deemed as a person above the rank of any employee of the

Institute. Though this provision is meant for the appellate authority,

in the absence of any provision in so far as the disciplinary

proceeding is concerned, it would be efficacious to place reliance on

this provision to cause an interpretation of the empowerment or

REPORTABLE

Page 26 of 34

entitlement of the present incumbent as the DA. This person is a

Higher Administrative Grade professor of a reputed institute (IIT

Kharagpur) and is of a rank which is higher than that of the

petitioner.

35. Thus, it cannot be held that the present DA, duly appointed by the

Chairman of the Council, suffers from jurisdictional deficiency. The

present incumbent DA is not disqualified as such to initiate the

proceeding as against the petitioner.

36. Insofar as the question of bias is concerned, there does not seem to

be any evidence to establish that the respondent no. 5 was biased or

that he had while framing the charges proceeded with a closed mind

and had already formed an opinion that the petitioner was guilty of

the charges so framed.

37. The charge-sheet of January 9, 2026 is clear and unequivocal. The

clarity would appear from the introduction to the charge-sheet at

paragraph 2, which clearly mentions that the incident has been

recorded as “the incident has been reported by the complainant”.

On the basis of this complaint, the charges have been framed which

are severable into two parts. First, every article of charge has a

REPORTABLE

Page 27 of 34

statement portion which seeks to set forth the incident. Second, the

charge. It is this charge which has been construed or rather

misconstrued as implication against the petitioner. A perusal of the

statement of each article of charge would clearly show that the charge

has been framed in terms of the statements, which had been

reported in the complaint. The charge itself cannot be construed as

implication as sought to be done by the petitioner.

38. It is however true that the charges seek an explanation or answer

from the delinquent, the petitioner herein to the provisions of CCS

(Conduct) Rules, 1964. The particulars of Appendix IV of the

Standing Service Orders, 1963 specify that where there are no

existing orders or accepted convention in the institute it would be the

rules of the Government of India which are deemed to be

applicable. The petitioner was unable to show that any rules exist or

have been framed by the institute in so far as the model conduct of

any employee of ISI is concerned. In view thereof, it is the Rules of

1964 which would clearly apply to the case of the petitioner.

39. It is also of some importance to note here that upon the issuance of

the show cause notice by the respondent no. 5, the petitioner

responded on three separate occasions, on November 26, 2025,

REPORTABLE

Page 28 of 34

December 15, 2025 and January 16, 2026. In none of these

responses did the petitioner ever raise the question of jurisdictional

deficiency in so far as the respondent no. 5 acting as the DA was

concerned. This was specifically mentioned in the show cause notice

that he had been appointed by the Chief Executive with the approval

of the Chairman, ISI Council. This was not objected to in any of the

letters given by the petitioner as aforesaid. The petitioner sought for

certain documents as well as the copy of the complaint in all of the

three replies. The only ground of jurisdiction alleged in the third

reply of the petitioner on January 16, 2026 is more relatable to the

issue of bias and the prejudiced mind of the DA.

40. It is not in dispute nor disputable that the complaint of the incident

had indeed been lodged by the Deputy Director. Similarly, it is

indisputable that the Deputy Director lodging the complaint was

present at the time of the incident. In fact, the petitioner has not

challenged this fact that the Deputy Director was not present. A

complaint can be lodged not just by the person who is at the centre

of such incident but by any person aggrieved by such incident on the

ground that it violates the prescribed rules or constitutes an act of

misconduct by the person alleged to have committed such an act.

REPORTABLE

Page 29 of 34

41. The list of witnesses provided in the articles of charge, clearly

records that the said list is tentative and it is open to the parties to

cause an addition or alteration to the list by introduction of further

witnesses. In any event the petitioner cannot seek to challenge the

procedural propriety of the disciplinary action initiated against him at

this stage on a rather flimsy ground that the Officiating Director has

not been called or is not likely to be called as a witness.

42. It is imperative now to deal with the decisions relied upon by the

parties. In the case reported in 1983 4 SCC 582, it was the

appointment procedure of the Director of an institution which had

been challenged. It was challenged after the entire procedure had

come to an end and a Director had already been chosen and

appointed from amongst interested persons. The appellant had lost

out in the process and challenged the same; the facts of this case are

completely different and the only issue in the said judgment relates

to the fact that the Bye-laws have to be followed strictly. In the

instant case, the Rules, Regulations, Bye-laws and Standing Orders

have been strictly followed.

43. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms in 2010 13 SCC 427 has

held that the object of a show cause notice is to give a reasonable

REPORTABLE

Page 30 of 34

opportunity to the noticee to object to the proposed charges. In this

matter, the challenge was made after a registration certificate of the

appellant had been cancelled by the authority. In this case, it is at the

initiation stage of the show cause notice and charge-sheet which has

been challenged on the ground of jurisdictional deficiency and

manifest bias as would appear from the tenor of the charge-sheet. It

is no doubt true that justice is rooted in confidence and on the

fairness of the authority, the petitioner herein has acted in

accordance with the show cause notice, to which he has given

multiple replies. Thus, it cannot be said that from the tenor of the

show cause notice or the articles of charge the petitioner was

apprehensive that he would not get justice.

44. The decision of this Hon’ble Court in 2013 2 CHN (CAL) 171 and

the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad relied upon by the petitioner

are on accepted propositions of law with which I respectfully agree.

The statutory body indeed has to act within the framework of the

statute and in this particular case there was no instance from which it

could be shown that the authority had acted dehors the provisions of

the law or the Bye-laws and regulations by which it is bound.

REPORTABLE

Page 31 of 34

45. The decisions relied upon by the respondent reported in 1999 (1)

SCC 183 are clear and unequivocal that the appointment of an ad

hoc disciplinary authority does not vitiate the proceeding, as there is

no material prejudice caused.

46. In fact, in the decision reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, it has been

held in no uncertain terms that the scope of interference challenging

a charge-sheet should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases

only. The writ lies when a right has been infringed. The petitioner

was unable to show any instances of infraction of his right; his

continued effort leads to the inevitable presumption that he is

unwilling to participate in the disciplinary proceeding. He has been

given all requisite documents and opportunities, and was requested

to participate in the hearing.

47. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 676 is equally clear and unequivocal with which I am

bound and respectfully agree that mere issuance of a show cause

notice does not give any cause of action as it does not amount to an

adverse order unless the issuing authority has no jurisdiction to issue

the same.

REPORTABLE

Page 32 of 34

48. As discussed aforesaid, the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to

issue the show cause notice and charge-sheet, and cannot under any

circumstances be held to be bereft of any jurisdiction to issue the

same.

49. In view of the aforestated discussions, the following conclusions

emanate:

a. There is no jurisdictional deficiency or error in so far as

the appointment of the Officiating Director by the

Chairman is concerned, as it is permissible under the

Bye-laws. The appointment of the respondent no. 5 by

the Chief Chairman of the council is also in consonance

with the Rules. The respondent no. 5 has been duly

appointed. The respondent no. 5 is surely a person falling

within the definition of Appendix II of the Standing

Service Orders, 1963.

b. The articles of charge are clearly not biased and merely

set forth the statements and charges in each of the articles.

REPORTABLE

Page 33 of 34

c. The reference to the CCS (Conduct) Rules is clearly

within the domain of the authorities.

50. In view of the aforestated, the process is not vitiated, and cannot be

set aside on the grounds raised by the petitioner. The petitioner will

have to face the disciplinary proceedings and will be entitled to

disclosure of documents as required and as permissible under the

bye-laws, rules and regulations. The DA will disclose all documents

and other evidence which have been disclosed and relied upon by

the ISI, to the petitioner.

51. In view of the aforestated, WPA 6468 of 2026 is dismissed.

52. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

53. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall

be granted to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon

compliance of all formalities.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)

REPORTABLE

Page 34 of 34

Later

After pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Suman Banerjee, learned Advocate

for the petitioner, seeks stay of the disciplinary proceeding.

Such prayer for stay of the proceeding is considered and declined.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)