Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) By the above writ application the petitioner, Principal of Jogesh Chandra Choudhury Law College challenged charge-sheet dated 20th March, 2003 and also enquiry proceedings commenced pursuant thereto by the respondent No. 4 viz. the Enquiry Officer. In the writ application originally the legality and validity of the charge-sheet was challenged and the propriety and impartiality of the Enquiry Officer appointed by the governing body had also been questioned. As far as challenge to the charge- sheet is concerned it is stated that charge-sheet is invalid and illegal, and initiation of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant thereto is contrary to the provisions of the West Bengal College Teachers' (Security of Services) Act, 1975 and also the rules framed thereunder. To specify the grounds as above it is stated that a teacher in a college can be departmentally proceeded against only by the governing body and not by the President alone. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer is absolutely biased against the petitioner and he has been influenced by the President of governing body. While conducting disciplinary proceedings he has demonstrated his biased attitude in favour of the governing body and against the petitioner by not allowing the documents to be supplied and further not allowing the witnesses to be cross-examined.
(2.) On 10th November, 2003 the above writ petition was moved and instead of granting stay of the disciplinary proceedings I allowed the proceedings to be continued by the same Enquiry Officer laying down the details and meticulous procedure to be adopted to eliminate the possibility of any procedural irregularity, arbitrariness or alleged biasedness. The aforesaid order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. I gave direction for filing affidavits. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the disciplinary proceedings was concluded and Enquiry Officer submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of alleged charges. Subsequently, two applications were made by the petitioner being CAN No. 9535 of 2004 and CAN No. 9536 of 2004 respectively. In view of completion of proceeding during the pendency of the writ petition on subsequent development an application for amendment of writ petition was made challenging the report of the Enquiry Officer and also the order of punishment of removal. By my order dated 21st December, 2004 I allowed the said amendment of writ petition, since report of the Enquiry Officer and the order of removal are the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings in connection with charge-sheet sought to be impugned in the original writ petition. By my later order, I stayed the operation of the impugned order of removal and gave direction for filing affidavits.
(3.) Pursuant to the said order a comprehensive amended copy of the writ petition has been filed in which in addition to her earlier grounds, fresh grounds have been taken to challenge the report of the Enquiry Officer and the order of punishment.;