Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1512 (CAL)

Shelley Bhattacharya v. Visva-Bharati University

2011-12-13

TAPEN SEN

body2011
JUDGMENT Re: W.P. No. 8097 (W) of 2011 (1st Writ Petition) Tapen Sen, J.: The Petitioner, Shelley Bhattacharya, prays for a Direction upon the Respondents to withdraw and cancel the preliminary Enquiry Report dated 1.4.2011 submitted by the Respondent No. 4 (Enquiry Committee). She further prays for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to forthwith withdraw and cancel the Memorandum dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Registrar, Vishwa Bharati) (Annexure-P/11) whereby and whereunder she was informed that an enquiry against her would be held under Statute No. 20.0 of the Statutes of the University and that she would have to submit her Written Statement of Defense within a period of 10 days also stating as to whether she deserved to be heard in person or not. 2. The statements of the Imputation of Misconducts and the Articles of Charges, for the sake of convenience, are being quoted and are also being set out below, juxtaposed to each other in a Table Format :- Statement of Imputation of Misconduct Memorandum / Articles of Charges ARTICLE I ARTICLE I Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of The Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha- Bhavana, in spite of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana was involved in being a senior Adhyapaka of the breaching of the confidentiality of the University and member of the executive Executive Council and failed to council, divulged the confidential and safeguard the security of confidential sensitive matters discussed in the information which she had access in meeting of the Executive Council dated course of official duty. 31.10.2009 before the electronic media thereby breaching of the confidentiality ARTICLE-II and trust of the Executive Council. As The Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of per decisions of the meeting of the Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made Executive Council dated 08/3/2002, authorized communication to the 25/06/2002, 08/01/2003 and electronic media named ‘Khoj Khabor’. 16/01/2011, every discussion in the Executive Council should be kept ARTICLE-III confidential by all the members and The Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of allied staff members associated with the Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana had maligned Executive Council. Such action on the the office of the Vice-Chancellor and part of Prof. Bhattacharya is prejudicial Visva-Bharati administration. to the interest of the University. ARTICLE-II Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of allied staff members associated with the Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana had maligned Executive Council. Such action on the the office of the Vice-Chancellor and part of Prof. Bhattacharya is prejudicial Visva-Bharati administration. to the interest of the University. ARTICLE-II Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made statement in the electronic media named “Khoj Khabor” thereby disobeying the order No. G/P.9/245 dated 08/05/2007 and No. G/P.9 dated 10/08/2006 wherein it is mentioned that no employee, except the official so authorized, is permitted to air grievance or make statement to the Press or electronic media. Such action on the part of Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya is prejudicial to the disciplinary control of the University. ARTICLE-III Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana gave unauthorized statement in the electronic media named “Khoj Khabor” divulging the discussion of the Executive Council wherein she maligned the office of the Vice-Chancellor and Visva-Bharati administration by using abusive language and making objectionable statement. 3. The Petitioner further prays for setting aside and quashing the said Enquiry Report dated 1.4.2011. She also prays for Quashing the aforementioned Memorandum dated 26.4.2011. Re: CAN 5385 of 2011 (filed in the 1st Writ Petition) 4. This Application has been filed by Vishwa Bharati praying for vacating and/or modifying the interim order dated 18.5.2011 appropriately and/or holding that W.P. No. 8097 (W) of 2011 has become infructuous by reason of the issuance of a subsequent Charge-sheet dated 20.5.2011. Re: W.P. No. 9025 (W) of 2011 (2nd Writ Petition) 5. In this Writ Petition, filed by Shelley Bhattacharya again, prayer has been made for a Direction upon the Respondents to withdraw and cancel the subsequent Memorandum of Charges dated 20.5.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Registrar). 6. The Statement of the Imputation of Misconducts and the Articles of Charges, for the sake of convenience, are once again being quoted and are also being set out below, juxtaposed to each other in a Table Format :- Statement of Imputation of Misconduct Memorandum / Articles of Charges ARTICLE-I ARTICLE-I Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of The Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. The Statement of the Imputation of Misconducts and the Articles of Charges, for the sake of convenience, are once again being quoted and are also being set out below, juxtaposed to each other in a Table Format :- Statement of Imputation of Misconduct Memorandum / Articles of Charges ARTICLE-I ARTICLE-I Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of The Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha- Bhavana, in spite of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana was involved in being a senior Adhyapaka of the breaching of the confidentiality of the University and member of the executive Executive Council and failed to council, divulged the confidential and safeguard the security of confidential sensitive matters discussed in the information which she had access in meeting of the Executive Council dated course of official duty. 31.10.2009 before the electronic media thereby breaching of the confidentiality ARTICLE-II and trust of the Executive Council. As The Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of per decisions of the meeting of the Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made Executive Council dated 08/3/2002, authorized communication to the 25/06/2002, 08/01/2003 and electronic media named ‘Khoj Khabor’. 16/01/2011, every discussion in the Executive Council should be kept ARTICLE-III confidential by all the members and The Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of allied staff members associated with the Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana had maligned Executive Council. Such action on the the office of the Vice-Chancellor and part of Prof. Bhattacharya is prejudicial Visva-Bharati administration. to the interest of the University. ARTICLE-II Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made statement in the electronic media named “Khoj Khabor” thereby disobeying the order No. G/P.9/245 dated 08/05/2007 and No. G/P.9 dated 10/08/2006 wherein it is mentioned hat no employee, except the official so authorized, is permitted to air grievance or make statement to the Press or electronic media. Such action on the part of Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya is prejudicial to the disciplinary control of the University. ARTICLE-III Prof. Shelly Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana gave unauthorized statement in the electronic media named “Khoj Khabor” divulging the discussion of the Executive Council wherein she maligned the office of the Vice-Chancellor and Visva-Bharati administration by using abusive language and making objectionable statement. 7. The Petitioner has also prayed for Quashing the said subsequent Memorandum dated 20.5.2011. 8. Before dealing with the two cases, it would be apt to point out here itself that the 2(two) Memorandums are identical to each other. 7. The Petitioner has also prayed for Quashing the said subsequent Memorandum dated 20.5.2011. 8. Before dealing with the two cases, it would be apt to point out here itself that the 2(two) Memorandums are identical to each other. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:- The Petitioner joined as a Lecturer in the Vishwa Bharati University in 1971. At the time of filing the Writ Petition being W.P. 8097 (W) of 2011 on 6.5.2011 she was functioning as a senior Adhayapika (Professor) and Coordinator , Centre for Advanced Studies Programme (UGC) in the Dept. of Zoology having specialization in Environmental Toxicology and Mechanistic Toxicology. She has been in this University for more than 39 years. 9. She became a member of the Executive Council sometime in October 2009 and on 16.1.2011, the Respondent No. 2 (Vice Chancellor) informed the said Council that there had been a serious breach of confidentiality of the discussions made in the Council which had been reported and that the Petitioner appeared to be involved in the said breach of trust. Accordingly, the Vice Chancellor asked the Petitioner to dissociate herself from the meeting when this issue was to be discussed. 10. Initially, the Petitioner refused to dissociate herself but, on being pursuaded by the other members, she did so and left the meeting. According to her, she therefore remained ignorant of the proceedings and the discussions held on the subject. 11. Later on, she came to learn from the Minutes of the Meeting, that the Vice Chancellor had allegedly informed the Executive Council that an evidence had been received which had been heard in Bengali. It was seen that the Petitioner was disclosing discussions of the Executive Council through the electronic media in a programme named “Khas Khobor”. It was alleged by the Vice-Chancellor that discussions of the Executive Council were confidential discussions and they could not be “unveiled” and “distorted”. 12. The Petitioner has asserted in paragraph 9 infra, that some of the members who were present in the said meeting, were not even Bengalis who could have been said to follow the Bengali language. 13. The Petitioner has stated that the Vice Chancellor relied upon a Resolution of the Executive Committee (EC) held on 8.3.2002 as well as an Executive Order dated 8.5.2007. 13. The Petitioner has stated that the Vice Chancellor relied upon a Resolution of the Executive Committee (EC) held on 8.3.2002 as well as an Executive Order dated 8.5.2007. She has stated that in the Meeting, a DVD containing discussions in Bengali were shown to the members and since many could not understand the language, english translation was given later on which, according to the Petitioner, was made by the Pro Vice-Chancellor. She has further stated that the translation was neither actual nor factual and as such, she has reasons to believe that it was doctored/tutored so as to mislead the members of the EC and specially those, who could not follow the Bengali language. 14. While, therefore, criticizing the mode and manner of the translation, the Petitioner has further stated that the DVD which contained the purported video recording of the Petitioner and which was supplied to her, was under the signature of the Secretary, Enquiry Committee, who was not even present in person in the meeting of the EC held on 16.1.2011 when, the said DVD had been shown. According to the Petitioner, the Secretary therefore, could not have any personal knowledge with regard to the said DVD that was played in the presence of the members on 16.1.2011 and the one that was supplied to the Petitioner under the signature of the Secretary. 15. It is stated that thereafter on 18.2.2011, the Registrar issued a letter to the Respondent No. 5 (Alok Mukhopadhyay) a copy of which was marked to the Petitioner informing, inter alia, that he had consented to act as Chairman of the Enquiry Committee and therefore, he had been appointed as the Chairman to enquire into the matter regarding alleged breach of confidentiality of the meeting of the Executive Council by the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner was informed that hearing would take place on 28.2.2011. The Petitioner appeared and submitted a letter informing that till date she had not been informed as to what were the allegations and that she was not even aware as to when any confidentiality was breached by her. 16. Thereafter the Petitioner was informed that hearing would take place on 28.2.2011. The Petitioner appeared and submitted a letter informing that till date she had not been informed as to what were the allegations and that she was not even aware as to when any confidentiality was breached by her. 16. The Petitioner also requested the Committee to furnish the Resolution of the Executive Committee taken in their meeting on 8.3.2003, photocopy of the Notification dated 8.5.2007 as well as the DVD which was shown in the 2nd Meeting on 16.1.2011 in her absence together with the English translation thereof which was distributed amongst the members in the absence of the Petitioner. 17. It is noticed that the Petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee on 22.3.2011 and filed a Representation raising various points therein including that the English translation of the alleged interview given in Bengali did not contain any date of signature of the person who had made the translation. She raised other objections and also prayed for a copy of the DVD duly authenticated by the members of the Executive Council which was exhibited to the members on 16.1.2011 as well as the authenticated English translation of the Petitioner’s alleged interview in Bengali. It appears that thereafter, the Petitioner submitted other Representations but on 22.3.2011, she received an Order-sheet of the same day under covering letter dated 24.3.2011 issued by the Secretary rejecting the prayers made by the Petitioner in her Representation dated 22.3.2011 wherein she had made the aforesaid request. Thereafter, the Petitioner again submitted a Representation on 27.3.2011 but by Order dated 22.3.2011, it was held by the Enquiry Committee that the Petitioner had not denied the allegations till that day. According to the Petitioner, such a stand was illegal inasmuch as there were no Articles of Charges nor was the Petitioner informed about any Imputation of Misconduct. 18. It is stated, that by reason of the Order dated 22.3.2011, the Respondent No. 4 turned down the requests made by the Petitioner in her letter dated 22.3.2011 asking for (i) authenticated copy of the english translation of the DVD; (ii) Assistance of a lawyer; and (iii) Further time till 30.4.2011. 18. It is stated, that by reason of the Order dated 22.3.2011, the Respondent No. 4 turned down the requests made by the Petitioner in her letter dated 22.3.2011 asking for (i) authenticated copy of the english translation of the DVD; (ii) Assistance of a lawyer; and (iii) Further time till 30.4.2011. All these requests were turned down in one sentence saying that on the first day of hearing, the Petitioner had not asked for the services of a lawyer nor had she talked of authentication of any document. According to the Petitioner, this reason was mechanical inasmuch as even on 22.3.2011 (being the first day of the hearing), the Petitioner had filed a Representation asking for the documents, the DVD and the english transcription of the Bengali conversations. According to the Petitioner, the impugned Charge-sheet was therefore issued on 26.4.2011 (Annexure-P/11) and the Enquiry Officer was also appointed on the same day (see Page-108) appointing one Amalendu Bose, Former Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development. One Mr. Ashok Kr. Mahato, Deputy Registrar & IC Estate, Visva-Bharati was appointed on the same day, as the Presenting Officer (see Page 107). The Charge-sheet was also issued on the same day, i.e. on 26.4.2011. 19. According to the Petitioner, the very initiation of the Departmental Proceeding was therefore mala fide and biased, not only for the aforementioned reasons, but also, for reasons mentioned in the Writ Petition itself. The Petitioner then filed this Writ Petition challenging the said Memorandum dated 26.4.2011 and made a prayer which have been indicated at the very outset. 20. On 18.5.2011, considering the submissions of P.K. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, this Court Admitted the Writ Petition for hearing and considering the arguments to the effect that Charge-sheet as well as appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were all made on the same day, an interim order was passed to the effect that till 31st August, 2011, the Respondents shall refrain from holding any enquiry against the Petitioner. On 7.6.2011, CAN 5385 of 2011 was filed by the Respondents (Visva Bharati) wherein they prayed for vacating the interim Order on the ground as stated in Para-8 of the said Application and which reads as follows:- “Your applicant states that considering the fact that the Enquiry Officer had been appointed at the stage of issuing the charge-sheet dated 26th April, 2011 and that the Hon’ble High Court had taken special note of the simultaneous appointment of the Enquiry Officer at the stage of issuing the charge-sheet, while granting the interim order dated 18th May, 2011, it was decided that only on the ground of appointment of Enquiry Officer at the stage of issuing the charge-sheet, the charge-sheet dated 26th April, 2011 may be withdrawn and a fresh charge-sheet be issued to the writ petitioner on the self same allegations and evidence so far connected against her; so that the writ petitioner may get an opportunity to give a reply to the charge-sheet before the University takes the decision as to whether an enquiry is at all required to be conducted against the writ petitioner or not on the basis of the allegations leveled in the charge-sheet.” (Quoted) 21. In Para-10, the Respondents further stated that a fresh Charge-sheet dated 20.5.2011 had been issued to the Petitioner and therefore, for all practical purposes, the present Writ Petition had become infructuous. 22. It appears that being aggrieved by the said 2nd Charge-sheet dated 24.5.2011, the Petitioner filed the other Writ petition being W.P. 9025(W) of 2011 and by an Order dated 30.5. 2011, another Hon’ble Single Judge passed an elaborate Order holding that since the earlier interim Order of injunction was still in operation, the University should not have ventured to proceed with the Departmental Proceedings by taking such an action. Accordingly, an interim order was passed restraining them from proceeding with the 2nd Departmental Proceedings till 30.5.2011. The said Order for convenience, is quoted below and the same reads as follows:- “In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side 30.5.2011 A.S.T. No. 311 of 2011 Shelley Bhattacharya Vs. Visva-Bharati University & Ors. Mr. Pranab Kumar Datta Mr. Kaushik Dey … for the petitioner Mr. Subrata Talukdar Mr. S. Chatterjee Mr. M. K. Seal Mr. The said Order for convenience, is quoted below and the same reads as follows:- “In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side 30.5.2011 A.S.T. No. 311 of 2011 Shelley Bhattacharya Vs. Visva-Bharati University & Ors. Mr. Pranab Kumar Datta Mr. Kaushik Dey … for the petitioner Mr. Subrata Talukdar Mr. S. Chatterjee Mr. M. K. Seal Mr. A. Mitra … for the University The University authority of Visva Bharati decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner who is the Head of the Department of Zoology, Shiksha-Bhavana under statute 20.0 of Visva Bharati. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued containing the following charges: “Article-I. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana was involved in breaching of the confidentiality of the Executive Council and failed to safeguard the security of confidential information which she had access of official duty. Article-II. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made unauthorized communication to the electronic media named ‘Khoj Khabor’. Article-III. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana has maligned the office of the Vice-Chancellor and Visva-Bharati administration.” The petitioner was called upon to submit a written statement of defence before the concerned authority within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum containing the articles of charges. The petitioner was also informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of the articles of charges, which will not be admitted by her. Accordingly, she was called upon to specifically admit or deny the articles of charges in her written statement. She was further informed that if she does not submit her written statement of defence on or before the date specified in para 2 of the said memorandum or does not appear in person before the enquiry authority, the enquiry authority may hold the enquiry against her ex parte. Upon receipt of the said charge-sheet the petitioner submitted her written statement of defence indicating therein that though she submitted the said written statement of defence, but she was not submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the said enquiry officer. Upon receipt of the said charge-sheet the petitioner submitted her written statement of defence indicating therein that though she submitted the said written statement of defence, but she was not submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the said enquiry officer. The petitioner ultimately challenged the legality of the said department proceedings by filing a writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition which was registered as W.P. No. 8097(W) of 2011 was admitted for hearing by a single Judge of this Court on 18.5.2011 when an interim order was passed by his Lordship whereby the respondents, their men, against and servants were restrained from holding any enquiry against the petitioner. The University authority has not challenged the said interim order passed by his Lordship in appeal. Thus, they accepted the said interim order. However, subsequently the University authority served a notice upon the petitioner on 20.5.2011 intimating that the charge-sheet which was issued to her earlier was withdrawn. But at the same time the University authority issued another charge-sheet containing articles of charges framed against her and invited the petitioner to reply to the said charge-sheet within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the said letter. On perusal of the said chargesheet this Court finds that the following articles of charges were framed by the University authority against the petitioner : “Article-I. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana was involved in breaching of the confidentiality of the Executive Council and failed to safeguard the security of confidential information which she had access of official duty. Article-II. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana made unauthorized communication to the electronic media named ‘Khoj Khabo’./ Article-III. That Prof. Shelley Bhattacharya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana has maligned the office of the Vice-Chancellor and Visva-Bharati administration.” This Court thus finds that though the University authority accepted the interim order of injunction passed by a learned single Judge of this Court as mentioned above and in fact has withdrawn the said charge-sheet and thereby practically abandoned the said departmental proceeding, but simultaneously they started another departmental proceeding for enquiring into the very same and identical charges on which they wanted to proceed earlier. If these two articles of charges are read simultaneously, then this Court finds that not only the wordings of those two set of charges are exactly identical, but also the order of use of commas and full stops in and in between the sentences in both the aforesaid set of charges were also maintained in the same position. In fact, the articles of charges in the present departmental proceeding are the verbatim copy of the articles of charges of the earlier departmental proceeding. It is pointed out by Mr. Talukdar that withdrawal of the charge-sheet by the authority does not preclude them from proceeding afresh on the very same charges against the delinquent employee. Though this Court basically and principally accepts such submission of Mr. Talukdar, but this Court holds that in this set of facts where the injunction order is operating against the University authorities, they cannot be permitted to proceed with the impugned departmental proceeding for enquiring into the charges against the petitioner, as the University authorities have been restrained for holding any enquiry against the petitioner till 31st August, 2011 by an interim order of injunction passed by this Court in the earlier pending writ petition as aforesaid. Under such circumstances this Court holds that when the interim order of injunction is still in operation, the University authority ought not to have ventured to proceed with the said departmental proceedings for enquiring into the identical charges which they have withdrawn by accepting the interim order passed in the earlier writ petition. The university authorities should not forget the fundamentals of law to the effect that what they cannot do directly because of the order of injunction, cannot be done by them indirectly. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a strong prima facie case for consideration of the dispute on merit. Thus, this Court passes an interim order of injunction by restraining the University authorities, their men, agent and servants from proceeding with the impugned departmental proceeding till 30.6.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to pray for execution of such interim order before the appropriate Bench, on the self same application with notice to the respondent. Leave is granted to the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition by 15.6.2011; reply, if any, be filed by 22.6.2011. Let this matter appear before the regular bench on 24.6.2011. Leave is granted to the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition by 15.6.2011; reply, if any, be filed by 22.6.2011. Let this matter appear before the regular bench on 24.6.2011. Let the affidavit of service filed in court today, be kept with the records. Urgent certified xerox of this order shall be given to the parties, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible. (Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.)” (Quoted) 23. Thereafter, the matters were taken up on 12.7.2011 when both the cases were directed to be taken up together on 19th July, 2011 and in the meantime, the interim Order was directed to continue till 26th July, 2011. Thereafter on 26th July, 2011, a Supplementary Affidavit was filed and the matter was listed for extension of the interim Order. Accordingly, both the Cases were directed to be listed on the 9th August, 2011 and the interim Order was directed to continue till the 17th August, 2011. Thereafter the matter was heard on 9th August, 2011, 10th August, 2011, 16th August, 2011, 6th September, 2011 and 12th September, 2011 when the matter, upon conclusion of hearing, was reserved for judgment. 24. We will, for convenience, deal with the first Writ Petition being W.P. 8097 (W) of 2011. In the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner had challenged the Memorandum dated 26.4.2011. By an interim Order dated 18.5.2011, the Respondents were directed to refrain from holding any enquiry against the Petitioner till 31.8.2011. In spite of such a restraint Order, the Respondents had the audacity to issue a 2nd Charge-sheet on 20.5.2011 which was identical to the 1st Charge-sheet. It was obviously for such an audacious behaviour on the part of the Respondents of attempting to do something indirectly what they could not have done directly, that another Hon’ble Single Judge (being the Vacation Bench) passed the Order on 30.5.2011 in the 2nd Writ Petition restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the 2nd Charge-sheet dated 20.5.2011 till 30.6.2011. Feeling obviously trapped, the Respondents then cleverly attempted to file CAN 5385 of 2011 on 7.6.2011 in the 1st Writ Petition (W.P. No. 8097(w) of 2011) wherein, at Para-13, they stated “that by reason of issuance of the Charge-sheet dated May 20, 2011, the Writ Petition being W.P. No. 8097(W) of 2011 has virtually become infructuous.” (SIC). They therefore prayed for disposal of the said Writ Petition as having become infructuous. They therefore prayed for disposal of the said Writ Petition as having become infructuous. In the 2nd Charge-sheet dated 20.5.2011, it is obvious that the 1st Charge-sheet was withdrawn. Now in CAN 5385 of 2011 filed on 7.6.2011, the Respondents prayed for modification of the Order dated 18.5.2011 by which, considering the arguments made to the effect that the charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer were made simultaneously, the Respondents were restrained from holding any enquiry against the Petitioner till 31st August, 2011. Now in the Application, the Respondents have stated that in view of the aforesaid acts of issuance of the Charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer being on the same day, they decided that only the Charge-sheet be withdrawn but a fresh Charge-sheet be issued on the self-same allegations and evidence so far connected against the Petitioner. Under the circumstances, they issued a fresh charge-sheet on 20.5.2011, just after the interim Order was passed on 18.5.2011. Now the first Charge-sheet has been withdrawn. Consequently, the first Writ Petition has obviously became infructuous since the subject matter of challenge of the first Writ Petition has itself been withdrawn by the Respondents consciously and by themselves. Accordingly, the first Writ Petition being W.P. No. 8097 (W) of 2011 will be deemed to have been disposed of as become having infructuous. As a consequence, CAN 5385 of 2011 will also be deemed to have been disposed of. 25. Now so far as the 2nd Writ Petition is concerned, this Court has already taken note of the Articles of Charges and which were issued on 20.5.2011. Comparing the same with the 1st Charge-sheet that was issued on 26.4.2011, it is evident that the 2nd charge-sheet is identical to the 1st Charge-sheet. Having been restrained from taking any action in the matter of holding an enquiry till the 31st August, 2011, the Respondents realised that they could not possibly have continued with the 1st Charge-sheet but even then and in the teeth of an interim Order which was passed on 18.5.2011, they took liberties of issuing the 2nd charge-sheet on 20.5.2011 thereby attempting to do something indirectly what they could not have done directly. In other words, they have attempted to frustrate the Order of this Court by which they were restrained from taking any action in relation to the holding of the enquiry because by reason of the 2nd charge-sheet issued on 20.5.2011, the Petitioner has been directed to give her reply within a period of 7 days from the date of issuance thereof. In other words, she had to submit a reply by the 27th May, 2011 when, by reason of the interim Order passed on 18.5.2011, they were not to take any steps till 31st August, 2011. These facts would be evident from Annexure P/5 at Page 237 of the writ petition and which reads as follows:- “VISVA-BHARATI SANTINIKETAN Since Enquiry Officer was appointed alongwith the charge sheet dated 26/4/2011, we withdraw the said chargesheet and send herewith the chargesheet afresh along with the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the article of charges framed against you. We request you to give your reply thereto to the undersigned within seven days from the date thereof. Inasmuch as all the documents were furnished to you alongwith the earlier chargesheet which has since been withdrawn we are not forwarding the said documents afresh. We wait for your reply Registrar Visva-Bharati Enclos: Annexure-I, II Memo No: ACE-534 Date : 20/5/2011 Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to: 1) Prof. Shelley Bhattacharyya, Dept. of Zoology, Siksha-Bhavana 2) The Principal, Siksha-Bhavana, V.B. 3) The Head, Dept. of Zoology, Visva-Bharati. Registrar Visva-Bharati” (Quoted but underlining by Court) 26. The conduct of the Respondents was therefore clearly mala fide. It amounts to nullifying the Order of the High Court in an indirect manner. Such conduct cannot be tolerated. 27. Apart from the aforesaid, one cannot also lose track of the fact that the Petitioner’s date of retirement (see Page 58 of the 2nd Writ Petition) is 30.5.2011. An interesting feature is that in the first Writ petition which was filed by the Petitioner and in which this Court had passed an interim Order on 18.5.2011, the Respondents quietly withdrew the first charge-sheet without contesting the same because they did not choose to file any counter-Affidavit in that Case. An interesting feature is that in the first Writ petition which was filed by the Petitioner and in which this Court had passed an interim Order on 18.5.2011, the Respondents quietly withdrew the first charge-sheet without contesting the same because they did not choose to file any counter-Affidavit in that Case. In the absence of any counter-Affidavit filed in the first case, and the said Writ Petition having been rendered infructuous by withdrawal of the Charge-sheet, the statements made by the Petitioner in that Writ Petition must be deemed to have been accepted. 28. Since the Charge-sheet which was withdrawn, was issued afresh in an illegal and mala fide manner (as has been already been held above), the Respondents cannot now be said to be armed with the right to do something indirectly which they could not have done directly. This Court therefore holds the action of the Respondents as being totally mala fide and therefore, has no hesitation but to hold that the 2nd Charge-sheet is also illegal and malafide. Moreover, on 20.5.2011, when the 2nd Charge was issued, the interim Order of this Court dated 18.5.2011 was staring them on their face. They could not therefore have issued the 2nd Charge-sheet at all. Therefore the 2nd Charge-sheet was also unauthorised. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned Charge-sheet, having been held to be malafide, unauthorised and illegal, is accordingly set aside and quashed. No Order as to costs. The Writ Petition is allowed. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.