Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 210 (CAL)

Krishanu Maulik v. Indian Statistical Institute

2020-02-13

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following relief: - 'b) A Writ of and/or the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities concerned and/or their men, servants, agents and/or assigns to forthwith cancel and/or withdraw and/or set aside and/or quash and/or rescind the impugned disciplinary proceeding and the impugned charge sheet issued vide Memo No.PU/711/DISC/469 dated 26.07.2019 and the show cause notice vide Memo No.PU/711/DISC/317 dated 17.06.2019;' 2. Records reveal that the petitioner submitted an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, RTI Act) on 14 th May, 2018 primarily seeking information as to whether the revenue internally generated by the Indian Statistical Institute (in short, ISI) during previous financial year was deducted while releasing grants-in-aid. Being dissatisfied with the order passed in the said application, the petitioner preferred a first appeal on 25t h July, 2018. On 11t h September, 2018 the petitioner submitted a request to the First Appellate Authority (in short, FAA) for allowing him inspection of documents. By a letter dated 17t h September, 2018 the petitioner was requested on behalf of the authorities of ISI to inform a date subject to his convenience to inspect the documents on or after 22n d October, 2018. Thereafter on 25t h September, 2018 the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (in short, CIC) which was disposed of by an order dated 31s t October, 2018 directing the authorities of ISI to facilitate inspection of records on information sought in point no.4 on 02.11.2018 at 3:00PM and provide certified copies of documents selected, upon payment of requisite fee . Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17t h June, 2019 by the respondent n.2 followed by a charge-sheet dated 22n d July, 2019. For resolution of the dispute, a date was fixed but such conciliation failed, as would be explicit from the memo dated 9t h January, 2020 issued by the respondent no.2 annexed at page 179 of the writ petition. 3. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there had been no misrepresentation of facts in the petitioners letter dated 22n d October, 2018 submitted to CIC. Upon considering the contents of the said letter, the second appeal was disposed of by an order dated 31s t October, 2018. 3. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there had been no misrepresentation of facts in the petitioners letter dated 22n d October, 2018 submitted to CIC. Upon considering the contents of the said letter, the second appeal was disposed of by an order dated 31s t October, 2018. For having preferred the statutory appeal under the provisions of the RTI Act the authorities of ISI could not have initiated the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner has exercised his right in terms of the RTI Act and has availed the remedies as provided under the said Act. Such act cannot be construed to be a misconduct and as such the disciplinary proceeding cannot survive. 4. He submits that from the contents of the charge sheet and the document annexed at page 179 of the writ petition, it would be explicit that the disciplinary authority had made up its mind and had already formed an opinion to impose penalty upon the petitioner. 5. Per contra , Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for ISI submits that the statements made by the petitioner in the letter dated 22n d October, 2018 to the CICI have caused humiliation and harassment to the officials of ISI and such act of the petitioner is detrimental to the interest and reputation of ISI and as such the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated. The dispute involves questions of fact, which need to be gone into by the inquiry authority. There had been no finding of guilt against the petitioner and as such question of any interference at this stage does not occasion. In support of such argument reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of M.H. Devendrappa vs. The Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation reported in AIR 1998 SC 1064 . 6. In the show-cause notice dated 17t h June, 2019, it was stated that an inspection of documents was conducted on 5 th October, 2018. The said date as fixed pertains to a separate application dated 9t h August, 2018 filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act, as would be explicit from the document annexed at page 143 of the writ petition. The document at page 56 reveals that the petitioner was requested to intimate the authorities a date after 22n d October, 2018 for inspection of documents. The document at page 56 reveals that the petitioner was requested to intimate the authorities a date after 22n d October, 2018 for inspection of documents. From the charge sheet dated 26t h July, 2019 it appears that the conduct of the petitioner had been construed to be violative of Article 4.1 of the Standing Service Orders. The said Clause runs as follows: ' Every worker will discharge his duties honestly, faithfully and properly and according to the best of his skill and ability and shall follow such lawful instructions in the matter of performance of his duties as may be given to him from time to time by appropriate authorities of the Institute.' 7. The petitioner has exercised his statutory right under the RTI Act seeking some information from the authorities. It also appears upon consideration of the petitioners letter dated 22n d October, 2018, the CIC passed an order on 31s t October, 2018 directing ISI to facilitate inspection of records and provide certified copies of documents selected, upon payment of requisite fee. 8. The contents of the petitioners letter dated 22n d October, 2018 prima facie do not constitute any humiliation or harassment of the officials. In the document at page 179 of the writ petition, the respondent no.2 had observed that it was quite apparent from the documents that there were fallacies in the petitioners action and such action was not in the best interest of ISI. In the said document it has also been recorded that the Presenting Officer had expressed that in the larger interest of ISI, the charges would not be pressed if the petitioner accepts his mistake and express remorse. The contents of the said letter read with the charge sheet reveal that the authorities have arrived at a definite conclusion as regards the petitioners alleged guilt. 9. In the said conspectus, prima facie , the statements made by the petitioner in the proceedings under the RTI Act ought not to have been construed by ISI to be an act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 10. The judgment delivered in the case of M.H. Devendrappa (supra) appears to have been delivered in the backdrop of the facts that the petitioner therein had made direct public attack on the head of the organization and had also issued press statements which were published in the daily newspaper. 10. The judgment delivered in the case of M.H. Devendrappa (supra) appears to have been delivered in the backdrop of the facts that the petitioner therein had made direct public attack on the head of the organization and had also issued press statements which were published in the daily newspaper. The said judgment is thus distinguishable on facts and has no manner of application in the present case. 11. In view thereof, there shall be an interim order in terms of prayer (g) of the writ petition till the disposal of the writ petition. 12. The respondents are directed to file their affidavitsin-opposition within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 13. Liberty to mention for final hearing after expiry of the period fixed above towards exchange of affidavits. Mr. Bhattacharya has prayed for stay of operation of this order. Such prayer is considered and rejected.