Calcutta HC Declines to Refer Disciplinary Writ to Larger Bench; Rules Enquiry Report by Judge Is Administrative, Not Judicial

Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that a Single Judge's enquiry report is an administrative act, not a judicial order, and refused to refer the disciplinary writ to a Division Bench under Chapter V Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules.

On 11 September 2026, Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta, refused to refer Writ Petition No. WPO/101/2025 to a Bench of two or more Judges. The petitioner, Shri Rajender Kumar Dudeja, who appeared in person, had challenged disciplinary proceedings and an enquiry report filed against him. His application for a Larger Bench reference rested primarily on the fact that the enquiry report had been authored by a sitting Single Judge of the same Court. Justice Mitra found that this circumstance did not make the matter one more advantageously heard by a Division Bench, because the enquiry report was made in an administrative capacity and carried no character of a judicial pronouncement.

The Dispute Before the Court

Dudeja filed WPO/101/2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the enquiry report that followed. The matter had been heard earlier by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court, before which the petitioner claims to have made elaborate submissions on merits. When the matter came before Justice Mitra and directions were being passed for exchange of affidavits, Dudeja raised, for the first time, a preliminary objection: that the writ petition ought not to be decided by a Single Bench at all.

The objection had not been raised before the co-ordinate Bench. Justice Mitra recorded this expressly, observing that the issue had evidently not been put before the earlier Bench despite the petitioner's assertion that he had concluded his submissions on merits before it.

The Petitioner's Case for a Larger Bench

Dudeja relied on Chapter V Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court. That provision permits a Single Judge, upon forming the opinion that a matter can be heard more advantageously by a Bench of two or more Judges, to refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench.

He advanced five reasons in support of such a reference. First, the enquiry report had been authored by a sitting Judge of the Court, and it might be difficult for another Single Judge to deliberate upon a report filed by a colleague. Second, judicial propriety and discipline demanded placement before a Larger Bench. Third, the matter had been heard elaborately, as evidenced by the order dated 27 April 2026. Fourth, it involved “serious questions of law” which ought to be decided by two or more Judges. Fifth, he placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12, Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors.

The High Court Administration's Response

Mr. Joydip Kar, Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Kallol Bose, Advocate, for the High Court administration, contested each ground.

On the scope of Chapter V Rule 2, Mr. Kar submitted that the provision is not a standing mandate to refer every matter to a Larger Bench. A reference is warranted only where a genuine judicial compulsion exists — such as conflicting Division Bench judgments on the same point — and not merely at a party's request.

On the enquiry report, Mr. Kar argued that it was filed by the learned Single Judge in his administrative capacity. It is not a quasi-judicial act, and no appeal lies from it under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865. The writ petition under Article 226 challenging such an administrative action does not transform the matter into one requiring a Division Bench.

On the order dated 27 April 2026, he pointed out that the submissions before the co-ordinate Bench were made at an ad interim stage, without any affidavits having been called for, and the matter had never been finally heard.

On Mary Pushpam, Mr. Kar submitted that the judgment addressed precedence and the binding effect of judicial decisions, and had no application to the facts of this case.

How Justice Mitra Reasoned

Justice Mitra began by characterising Chapter V Rule 2. The provision is not a mandate but a guideline, directory in nature. A reference is available only after the Single Judge independently forms the view that a matter can be heard more advantageously by a Larger Bench. The petitioner cannot compel such a reference by merely asserting that it should be made.

The court then turned to the central plank of Dudeja's application: that the enquiry report was authored by a sitting Single Judge. Justice Mitra distinguished between two fundamentally different capacities in which a judge may act. A Judge who conducts a departmental enquiry and submits a report does so in an administrative capacity. The report communicates a finding of an enquiry authority; it is not a judicial pronouncement made while discharging judicial function.

Accepting Dudeja's argument would have required the court to treat the petition as though it were sitting in appeal over a judicial order of another Single Judge. Justice Mitra held that this “is impermissible in law and would result in judicial indiscipline.” Nothing in the Original Side Rules or in service jurisprudence provides for an appeal from a finding by an enquiry authority.

On Mary Pushpam, Justice Mitra agreed with the proposition in the judgment but held it inapplicable here. The decision dealt with judicial orders and precedence. In the present case, what is challenged is an enquiry report, not a judicial order or decision. The ratio of Mary Pushpam offered no assistance to Dudeja.

On the claim that serious questions of law were involved, Justice Mitra noted that Dudeja had not stated that he lacked confidence in a Single Judge to deal with such questions. That ground, therefore, did not independently support a reference.

Outcome

Justice Mitra held that no ground existed to conclude that the matter could be heard more advantageously by a Bench of two or more Judges under Chapter V Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules. The writ petition will proceed before a Single Judge.

The Court directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition by 15 October 2026. The petitioner may file a reply by 13 November 2026. The matter is listed for hearing on 20 November 2026.