- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr. Saswat Samay Das v. Indian Institute Of Technology, Iit Campus, Kharagpur & Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns a writ petition challenging an order of the Appellate Authority related to disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner received a copy of the impugned order dated October 4, 2017, but disciplinary proceedings have not yet been initiated despite the passage of more than a month. The court heard advocates for the parties and decided that the matter should be adjudicated on affidavits. The respondent no. 6 declined to file an affidavit, while other respondents were directed to file affidavits within specified timelines. The matter was scheduled for a listed motion hearing in January 2018.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an interim order should be granted to stay the initiation of disciplinary proceedings pending adjudication of the writ petition.
- Whether the disciplinary authority can proceed without officially publishing the results of the proceedings.
- The extent to which considerations such as alleged student resentment or the complainant’s prestige affect the court’s decision on interim relief.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent no. 6's Arguments
- Refused to file any affidavit in the matter.
- Submitted that the prestige of the complainant would be tarnished if the matter was delayed further.
Respondents nos. 2 to 4's Arguments
- Prayed for leave to proceed with the disciplinary authority without officially publishing the results of such proceedings.
- Alleged resentment among students regarding the matter.
Court's Response to Arguments
- Declined to pass any order based on alleged student resentment, emphasizing that the institution cannot act or refrain from acting to appease unrelated parties while the matter is before the court.
- Rejected the argument regarding tarnishing of the complainant’s prestige as unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the interim order.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the procedural history and submissions and found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for an interim order. The absence of a date on the impugned order was noted, but the petitioner had been sent a copy with a forwarding letter dated October 4, 2017. Since disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated for over a month, the court opined that they could wait a few more weeks.
The court rejected the respondents’ request to proceed without officially publishing results, citing recent Supreme Court disapproval of such a practice. The court also declined to consider extraneous factors such as student resentment or the complainant’s prestige, emphasizing that the interim order does not adjudicate the merits but merely preserves the status quo to avoid rendering the writ petition infructuous.
Balancing convenience, the court found that refusal to grant interim relief would prejudice the petitioner more severely, as disciplinary proceedings would proceed immediately. Conversely, any delay would only postpone disciplinary action by a few weeks, which would not unduly prejudice the respondents.
Accordingly, the court granted an interim order staying the disciplinary proceedings for eight weeks or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is to grant an interim order restraining the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for a period of eight weeks or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
This decision directly affects the parties by temporarily staying disciplinary action to allow the court to adjudicate the writ petition on merits without prejudice. No broader legal precedent was established, as the order primarily preserves the status quo pending final determination.
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.:— Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
2. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. This writ petition should be decided on affidavits.
4. Mr. Majumder, the learned advocate for the respondent no. 6, submits that the said respondent will not file any affidavit.
5. Let the affidavit in opposition by the other respondents be filed within four weeks from date. Let the affidavit in reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
6. Let the matter appear as Listed Motion in the Combined Monthly List of January, 2018 within the first 50 matters under that heading.
7. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after going through the order impugned in the writ petition I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim order. The order of the Appellate Authority does not mention on any date on which the order was passed. However, the petitioner was sent a copy of the said order accompanied by a forwarding letter dated October 4, 2017. If in more than one month's time the disciplinary proceeding has not been initiated, I am of the view that the same can wait for a few more weeks.
8. Mr. Majumder, the learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, prayed for leave to proceed with the disciplinary authority without officially publishing the result of such proceedings.
9. Since the Supreme Court in more recent time has deprecated such a stand, I am not willing to make any such interim arrangement. Moreover, the reasons for Mr. Majumder's objection is not also very clear about how the respondent will be prejudiced if the disciplinary proceeding is not initiated immediately. Then Mr. Majumder on instruction submits that there has been resentment among the students over this matter. The Court declines to act and not to pass any order on the alleged resentment or commotion amongst others who have no connection with the allegations made. The Indian Institute of Technology cannot act in any manner or refrain from acting to appease the students when the matter is pending before a Court of law.
10. Mr. Majumder, the learned advocate for the respondent no. 6, submitted that the prestige of the complainant would be tarnished if the matter is any further delayed.
11. I have heard his submission. It cannot be considered very seriously as it totally fails to substantiate how in a few months' time the prestige or status of the complainant-respondent will be tarnished when there had been two rounds of adjudication in respect of the complaint made by her. That apart, the prestige of the complainant or for that matter of any person, is not dependent upon the interim order of the Court. This interim order does not say anything about the truth or otherwise of the complaint. It merely says that the disciplinary action should wait for a few weeks till the court gets an opportunity to adjudicate the matter. Given this very basic nature of an interim order, the objection of the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 6 as well as the learned Advocate for the IIT to initiate the disciplinary proceeding must yield to the more pressing requirement of the petitioner as otherwise the writ petition may eventually become infructuous.
12. Examined from any angle there cannot be any doubt that this is a matter where the balance of convenience and inconvenience lies in favour of passing an interim order inasmuch as refusal to pass an interim order shall affect the petitioner as he will have to face the disciplinary proceeding than it shall prejudice the respondents as in case the writ petition fails the initiation of disciplinary proceeding shall be delayed by only a few weeks. The reverse of it may be fatal for the petitioner so far as this case is concerned.
13. In such view of it, there shall be an interim order in terms of prayer (e) to the writ petition for a operiod of eight weeks or until further whichever is earlier.
Alert