Calcutta HC Quashes 93-Charge Preliminary Enquiry Against Bagnan College Teachers, Finds Notices Harassive and Mala Fide
Justice Jay Sengupta set aside statements of allegations carrying stale, vague charges against two Bagnan College professors, finding the entire exercise smacked of personal vendetta by the Principal.
The High Court at Calcutta has quashed notices and statements of allegations issued to two professors of Bagnan College by a Preliminary Enquiry Committee and the college's Principal, finding the charges patently stale, vague, and the product of a vindictive mindset. Justice Jay Sengupta, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, disposed of WPA 26374 of 2023 filed by professor Soma Mukhopadhyay and WPA 26362 of 2023 filed by Anup Kumar Basu on 10 August 2026, after last hearing the matter on 12 May 2026. The judgment traces a prolonged course of litigation between the petitioners and the college's Principal, Dr. Badal Kumar Maity, and holds that where a person in public office abuses power to settle personal scores — impinging upon the fundamental rights of citizens — the Court is at liberty to intervene ex debito justitiae.
The Dispute Before the Court
Soma Mukhopadhyay served as Teacher-in-Charge of Bagnan College from July 2012 until 9 May 2015, when Dr. Badal Kumar Maity joined as Principal. Anup Kumar Basu was a professor at the same institution. Both petitioners were also elected members of the college's Governing Body in 2019.
According to the petitioners, Dr. Maity soon after joining filed a writ petition — WPA 7038(W) of 2018 — in his personal capacity and without permission from the college, against the petitioners and other staff. That petition did not yield any favourable result for him. The Governing Body then initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Maity himself, issuing a chargesheet on 8 June 2020 containing 15 charges, and suspending him on 16 June 2020.
The Principal thereafter lodged FIR Case No. 216 of 2020 dated 12 July 2020 at Bagnan Police Station under multiple sections of the IPC, registered as GR Case No. 1176 of 2022, against the petitioners and other staff. He also filed a writ petition — WPA 5757 of 2020 — alleging police inaction. The police investigated and submitted a final report discharging the petitioners for lack of evidence. Dr. Maity then filed a protest petition before the Trial Court.
The petitioners alleged that the President of the Governing Body, described as a political person, exercised influence to secure withdrawal of the suspension order and chargesheet against Dr. Maity. The Principal re-joined the college on 23 December 2021 and, the petitioners contend, thereafter began acting with a vindictive mindset against those he considered responsible for the disciplinary action against him.
On 25 October 2022, the petitioners received suspension notices issued by the Principal under his own hand and seal, allegedly without the knowledge of the Governing Body. The petitioners challenged these before this Court by way of WPA 23404 of 2022, filed on 31 October 2022. On 3 November 2022, this Court stayed the suspension order as well as a notice calling an election for three Governing Body seats that had been triggered by the alleged suspension.
A Pattern of Notices and Earlier Judicial Intervention
Following that defeat, the petitioners allege, Dr. Maity orchestrated the formation of a Preliminary Enquiry Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Mani Shankar Maity. On 2 May 2023, that committee issued a notice to four teaching staff, including the petitioners, for alleged violations of rules and regulations and irregular activities. The contents were described as entirely vague.
The petitioners objected by letter dated 10 May 2023 and were then called again by letter dated 1 June 2023. They challenged both notices before this Court through WPA 13201 of 2023. On 9 June 2023, a coordinate bench set aside the notice dated 2 May 2023 and the subsequent notice dated 1 June 2023, observing that no specific allegations had been made and that no enquiry, even of a preliminary nature, should have been initiated on such a vague notice. Dr. Maity was personally present in the courtroom. Counsel appearing for him undertook to withdraw the notices, with liberty to act in accordance with law.
Despite that order, on 16 October 2023 the Chairman of a reconstituted Preliminary Enquiry Committee — reconstituted after a meeting of the Governing Body on 24 August 2023 following the resignation of one member — issued a fresh notice calling the petitioners for personal hearing on 3 November 2023. Attached to that notice was a statement of allegations purportedly framed by the Principal on 1 March 2023, containing 93 charges against Soma Mukhopadhyay and 70 charges against Anup Kumar Basu.
The petitioners pointed out that on 9 June 2023, the Court had found no specific allegations existed against them. Yet the statement of allegations was dated 1 March 2023, predating that order — a date they characterised as antedated. The writ petitions in the present matter were filed on 22 November 2023. On 1 December 2023, when the petitions first came up, it was disclosed on behalf of the Principal that the preliminary enquiry had already been concluded on 25 November 2023 — after copies of the writ petitions had been served on the Principal and the college authority before that date. This Court on 1 December 2023 directed the respondents not to proceed further without leave of the Court.
The Charges Examined
On 8 January 2024, this Court observed, prima facie, that it was not satisfied that a disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the allegations surfacing in the Preliminary Enquiry Committee's report. It noted that the gravest allegation was of forged educational testimonials and that the police had already found those allegations baseless. It also found no financial irregularities disclosed in the report.
In the present judgment, Justice Sengupta examined specific charges from both statements of allegations. Against Soma Mukhopadhyay, clause 9 alleged that she had left the college early on different unspecified dates starting from the year 2001 and ending in 2015 — without specifying the dates. The Court found it “absolutely ludicrous to seek an answer now about whether the petitioner actually left early two unspecified days in the year 2001.” Clause 12 alleged she had not signed the attendance register from 1992 to 1997, a register the college authorities themselves were responsible for maintaining. Clause 13 alleged she had concurrently served as a part-time morning shift lecturer and permanent day shift lecturer in 1999, 2000 and 2001 without approval, but the allegation did not refer to any source establishing that the appropriate authority had withheld approval.
Clause 88 alleged that during the COVID-19 period the petitioner had attended college “with malicious intention.” The Court observed that it would be impossible for any teacher to counter such an allegation.
Against Anup Kumar Basu, clauses 8 and 9 alleged attendance at late hours and early departures, again giving times but not dates, running from 2001 to 2017. Clause 11 alleged unauthorised absence for unspecified dates across the years 1991 through 1997 and 2001 through 2002. Clause 26 blandly alleged personal influence to obtain a UGC scale, and clause 35 alleged personal influence for a suspected pay fixation memo dated 19 March 1998 — raised nearly three decades later.
Justice Sengupta concluded that the allegations for both petitioners were laden with charges dating back decades where even the dates were not mentioned, were patently stale, and that some of the more recent ones were either vague or frivolous. He observed that no staff member working for so long at a college should unnecessarily be made to answer such questions at the fag end of a career.
How the Court Reasoned
The respondents — the Principal and the Governing Body — contended that notices calling employees for preliminary enquiry hearings are ordinarily not to be interfered with, and that a Preliminary Enquiry Committee is only a fact-finding body whose report does not by itself prejudice employees. They relied on decisions of the Supreme Court including Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854, and Air India Ltd. v. M. Yogeshwar Raj, (2000) 5 SCC 467, for the proposition that even ex parte preliminary enquiries are permissible since they serve only to determine whether a formal departmental proceeding is warranted.
Justice Sengupta accepted the general proposition that notices for preliminary enquiry hearings are ordinarily not to be interfered with but held that this proposition rests on underlying assumptions: the notices and allegations must be fair, proper, not harassive, and issued bona fide. He noted that this Court had already had to intervene once and set aside earlier notices for the same purpose.
Reading the impugned notices and statements of allegations in the context of the prior animus and the timeline of litigation between the parties, the Court held that they did not conform to the standards of a fair and proper notice. The pattern was clear: the Principal had filed a writ petition that failed, had a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, had his police complaint result in a discharge report, had suspension notices stayed, had an earlier round of enquiry notices set aside, and had then issued a fresh and far longer set of charges within months.
The Court held that when a person assuming an office dealing with public duties abuses that power to settle personal scores, impinging upon the fundamental rights of citizens, the Court is at liberty to intervene ex debito justitiae. The nature and content of the allegations, read in the context of earlier animus and the chronology of events, made it abundantly clear that the exercise was designed to harass rather than to conduct any legitimate fact-finding.
Respondents' Other Arguments
The Governing Body and the Principal also argued that the writ petitions had become infructuous because the newly constituted Preliminary Enquiry Committee had already concluded and submitted its report on 10 December 2023 and was now functus officio, and that the notices challenged could no longer be set aside or quashed in any executable sense.
They pointed out that one of the four teaching staff against whom the PEC had proceeded — Mr. Champak Kumar Chakraborty — had challenged the PEC report and the consequential show cause notice, and that this Court had on 22 May 2025 set aside that report and notice but granted liberty to the Governing Body to initiate a regular disciplinary proceeding under the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 read with the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Rules, 1977. A disciplinary proceeding was thereafter initiated, concluded, and resulted in an order of dismissal dated 28 January 2026 against Mr. Chakraborty.
The respondents contended that the Governing Body intended to initiate a similar disciplinary proceeding against the present petitioners under those statutory provisions, and that the petitioner in WPA 26374 of 2023 was due to retire on 31 January 2027 and the petitioner in WPA 26362 of 2023 on 31 May 2026.
The respondents also contended that the interim orders were preventing preparation of the petitioners' service books and retirement papers. The petitioners refuted this, asserting that no interim order in these writ petitions had the effect of restraining the authorities from preparing service books.
Justice Sengupta did not accept the respondents' submission that the petitions had become infructuous. The question of the fairness and bona fides of the notices and statements of allegations remained live, and the Court proceeded to quash them on the merits.
Order
Justice Jay Sengupta quashed and set aside the impugned notices and the statements of allegations issued against the petitioners. The writ petitions WPA 26374 of 2023 and WPA 26362 of 2023 were disposed of accordingly. The Court directed that urgent photostat certified copies of the order be given to the parties on completion of the requisite formalities.