Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 30.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Dr. Mrs. Indrani Datta (Chaudhuri) (petitioner) vs. Vidyasagar University and others (respondents).
  • Two writ petitions were pending: WPA 2474 of 2018 (challenging a charge‑sheet dated 24‑Nov‑2017) and WPA 7019 of 2019 (challenging the enquiry report forwarded on 06‑Mar‑2019).
  • The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, was served a memorandum of charges under eight heads on 24‑Nov‑2017, with a list of documents and witnesses.
  • An enquiry was conducted; the Enquiry Officer recorded depositions of 17 prosecution witnesses on 17‑Sep‑2018, finalised the minutes on 29‑Sep‑2018, and submitted a report indicating the charges were proved.
  • The petitioner alleged denial of cross‑examination, non‑provision of witness depositions, and that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor, violating natural justice.
  • Specific allegations included: (i) inability to cross‑examine 17 witnesses on the same day, (ii) request for copies of depositions on 17‑Sep‑2018 denied, (iii) vague witness list, (iv) introduction of new documents despite objections, and (v) finding of moral turpitude without a framed charge.
  • Respondents argued that the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross‑examine, that the enquiry officer’s role does not require strict procedural rules, and that the petitioner had signed the finalised minutes, thereby estopping further objections.
  • Both sides cited precedents: petitioner relied on Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan, State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh, Moni Shankar v. Union of India, Nripendra Nath Bagchi, M.V. Bijlani; respondents relied on Kalpana Mehta, Kunisetty Satyanarayana, Director General of Police v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, and others.
  • The court examined maintainability, noting that a charge‑sheet or enquiry report alone does not constitute an adverse order warranting writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
  • The court reviewed the minutes (04‑Aug‑2018, 01‑Sep‑2018, 17‑Sep‑2018, 29‑Sep‑2018) and found that the petitioner participated, cross‑examined 16 of the 17 witnesses, and only declined to cross‑examine PW1 due to lack of deposition copy.
  • The court held that departmental enquiries are not bound by strict evidence rules; the Enquiry Officer’s proactive questioning, with the presenting officer present, did not vitiate the process.
  • The court distinguished the petitioner’s cited cases, concluding that the facts did not demonstrate a breach of natural justice sufficient to merit interference.
  • The court also interpreted the word “accepted” in the 06‑Mar‑2019 letter as “received,” negating any inference of pre‑determined conclusion by the Executive Council.
  • Consequently, the court found no merit in WPA 7019 of 2019 and dismissed it, and by extension dismissed WPA 2474 of 2018.

Final Outcome

  • Both WPA 2474 of 2018 and WPA 7019 of 2019 are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain an urgent certified copy of the judgment upon usual formalities.

Topics: Legal Precedent, Higher Education Discipline