16/07 2026 AD/258/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/4991/2026 CAN/1/2026 BIPLAB DASGUPTA VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Mr. Biswroop Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Pramitava Nath, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Asim Kuimar Routh, Advocate Mr. Soudip Pal Chowdhuri Mr. Subhayan Barik, Advocate Ms. Manishka Dhar, Advocate ……for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 Ms. Priti Jain, Advocate ……for the Union of India CAN/1/2026 1. The petitioner has been in employment with the respondent no. 2 since 2014. The petitioner is aggrieved that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by way of a show-cause notice dated 22.09.2025, which was duly replied on 24.09.2025 is vitiated. The charge-sheet was framed sometime on 23.12.2025. 2. Challenging the charge-sheet and the initiation of proceedings, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the writ-petition being WPA/4991/2026. 3. The present application has been filed seeking stay of the disciplinary proceedings which itself was prayed for at the time of moving of the writ-petition. 4. The orders of this Hon'ble Court clearly reveal that the said prayer had been declined on 10.03.2026 and 24.03.2026. 5. This application, CAN/1/2026 has been filed with a limited prayer for stay of the disciplinary P a g e | 2 proceedings, which has been augmented by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner at the time of hearing to seek a change in the personnel of the Inquiry Officer (in short I.O.). 6. The principal ground, argued by Mr. Bhattacharya to further his case that the Inquiry Officer should be changed immediately, is bias. 7. The issue of bias has sought to be reflected from the manner in which the I.O. has proceeded, whether it is at the time of taking evidence or even beyond the terms of reference, in contacting some of the witnesses proposed by the petitioner or contacting other former employees of the respondent no. 2. 8. These are the only instances of bias which have been raised by the petitioner against this particular Inquiry Officer. 9. Mr. Routh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the bare allegations of bias are grossly insufficient and inadequate to establish bias. In fact, he submits that this is the third Inquiry Officer who has been appointed. The first I.O. was changed on the request of the petitioner and the second was changed on the request of the Court. He further submits that the avowed intent of the petitioner is to somehow delay the proceedings and to prolong the same till after January 2027, when the petitioner retires from service. 10. The entire process undertaken by the petitioner in approaching Court on multiple occasions with the very same prayer is nothing short of a ploy to render the entire process nugatory. 11. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties at length. P a g e | 3 12. The facts are not in dispute and are on a very short conspectus. 13. It is true that the petitioner has been in service since 2014 and has served a fairly unblemished tenure in the respondent no. 2. It was sometime in 2025 that proceedings were drawn up against him on charges which were reflected in the articles which were made over to the petitioner. This, after the show- cause notice and the reply thereto by the petitioner. 14. It is also not in dispute that the first I.O. appointed by the respondents was not to the petitioner's liking, on account whereof, the authorities had replaced the said I.O. with the second I.O. The petitioner was aggrieved with the manner and mode in which the second I.O. had conducted the proceedings and had approached this Hon'ble Court when on March 24, 2026, the respondents' willingness to replace the I.O. was recorded, as was the fact that the petitioner was unwilling to participate in the process. 15. However, the petitioner has been duly protected by the afore-stated order of 24.03.2026 to the extent that the proceedings will not be terminated and no final order would be passed without the leave of this Court. 16. Presently, the allegations of bias against the I.O. raised by the petitioner were duly confronted by the petitioner with the I.O.. 17. The I.O. in response to such allegation has categorically denied that he had made any communication with any of the witnesses or with any former employees beyond the domain of the investigation or the proceedings and the allegations of bias leveled against him were absolutely false and without any basis. P a g e | 4 18. It is true that an inanimate feeling such as bias is difficult to be proved in a Court of Law and can appear only from the mode and manner in which a proceeding is being conducted. The apprehension of bias must be real and not one which is perceived by a person leveling such allegation. 19. The issue of bias as alleged by the petitioner emanates from the fact that the I.O. has been asking questions to the witnesses presented by the petitioner. There is absolutely no bar that the I.O. cannot put questions to the witnesses during the course of the proceedings. 20. However, there is no evidence nor any apprehension has been established which would warrant a conclusion that the I.O. has been communicating with the witnesses or any other persons outside of the proceedings in any manner whatsoever. 21. The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire much confidence. The petitioner has repeatedly approached Court with repeated allegations of bias against successive I.O.s. The intent of the petitioner seems to prolong the matter. 22. The prolongation of the disciplinary proceedings beyond January 2027 would enure to the benefit of the petitioner in a manner which the petitioner deems fit. The petitioner is still in service and there is no reason why the petitioner should not face the proceedings which are now pending before the I.O.. 23. If indeed the petitioner has a grievance that the proceedings are not being conducted in conformity with the principles of natural justice or that the proceedings are being conducted contrary to the P a g e | 5 guidelines and in a manner which is prejudicial to the petitioner, the same can be raised at the time of challenging the order that may be passed by the disciplinary authority. In any event, no such issue has been raised in the present application. 24. I do not find any reason to modify the order of 10.03.2026 or give the petitioner any further leverage by asking for the present I.O. to be changed or substituted, as suggested by the petitioner. 25. The petitioner will have to face the disciplinary proceedings and it is only trite that the entire proceedings be conducted expeditiously and be terminated without, of course, passing the final order without the leave of this Court, as stipulated in the order of 24.03.2026. 26. In view of the afore-stated, this application being CAN/1/2026 fails and is accordingly dismissed. WPA/4991/2026 27. Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, is taken on record. 28. On the prayer of Mr. Bhattacharya, time to file affidavit-in-reply is extended. 29. Let affidavit-in-reply be filed by 30.07.2026. 30. Let the writ-petition appear in the Combined Monthly List of Cases for the month of August 2026. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 6