FULL SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR. SURAJIT C.
MUKHOPADHYAY
On 15th January, 2014, the NUJS Student Juridical Association (“SJA”) held a General Body
Meeting at the University auditorium. A storm of questions was raised by the students against
the current Vice Chancellor (“current VC”) and Dr. Surajit Chandra Mukhopadhyay
(“Charged Officer”) regarding inter alia purchase of unbranded chairs and air conditioners
at exorbitant prices. Without giving any satisfactory answers, the Charged Officer left
midway on the pretext of an emergency. Later, the Charged Officer was found in his
chambers which left the impression that he was trying to evade the questions.
At the end of the meeting, the SJA unanimously passed the following resolution:
We, the student body of WBNUJS, hereby resolve that we demand the resignation of the
Registrar, Dr. Surajit C Mukhopadhyay, within 24 hours, on grounds of sustained
administrative opacity, unaccountability and our consequential loss of faith.
However, he did not resign. After constant persuasion by the SJA, the NUJS Executive
Council (“EC”) agreed to form a committee to probe these allegations. The current VC
constituted an Inquiry Committee (“Committee”) under Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) N.N.
Mathur, Mr. Saroj Das and Mr. Asok Deb. The Committee submitted its report to the current
VC on April 3, 2014.
The current VC show-caused the Charged Officer on July 22, 2014. Unsatisfied with his
reply, the current VC decided to constitute a departmental enquiry against the Charged
Officer on August 27, 2014. The next day he was served a suspension letter in order to ensure
a free and transparent enquiry.
The Charged Officer initiated a writ (Writ No. W.P. 25523 (W) of 2014) before the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court against the suspension and the departmental enquiry initiated against
him. On September 22, 2014, Justice (Retd.) P.N. Sinha, the Inquiry Officer was appointed by
the Calcutta High Court (“Inquiry Officer”). The Calcutta High Court took judicial notice of
the Inquiry Report in the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dr. Surajit Chandra
Mukhopadhyay, Registrar (Under Suspension) of the West Bengal National University of
Juridical Sciences” (“Report”) vide its order dated February 19, 2016.
The major charges that have been proven against the Charged Officer in the Report are
briefly summarised below –

 1. Purchase of 296 XO brand chairs at an exorbitant price – XO brand chairs were bought
by the University due to the intervention of the Charged Officer in three phases (66, 148
and 82) at Rs. 7,500/- a piece (Report, p. 55). In the same tendering process, the same
supplier (who provided the XO brand chairs) had quoted Godrej/Elegant chairs at Rs.
6,500/- a piece (Report, p. 53). The Charged Officer issued an order to M/s. Curtain
Centre for supply of the XO brand chairs without drawing the attention of the current VC,
the Finance Committee (“FC”) or this Council to the matter (Report, p. 53). Thus, there
was a clear violation of the provisions NUJS Act, 1999 by the Charged Officer (Report, p.
59). Further, the Inquiry Officer acknowledged that the quotation independently obtained
by the students from the same source shop (Calcutta Carpets) for the same brand and
specification established that the actual price of these chairs was just Rs. 3,000/- a piece
(Report, p. 55). Therefore, the purchase of these 296 chairs resulted in a loss of Rs.
13,32,000 to the University due to the illegalities committed by the Charged Officer.
2. Internal decoration of room numbers 201, 227, and 327 at an exorbitant price – Due to
the intervention by the Charged Officer, room numbers 201, 227, and 327 of the
University were internally decorated by M/s. Curtain Centre at an exorbitant price.
The Charged Officer, in his note dated 07/11/2012, wrote that the advertisement of the
tendering for the internal decoration of room numbers 201, 221, and 327 be put in Anand
Bazaar Patrika (Bengali newspaper) and the University website (Report, p. 60).
Consequently, notwithstanding Rule 150(i) of the General Financial Rules, 2005
(“GFR”), no advertisement was published in the Indian Trade Journal published by the
Director General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Kolkata or any national daily
even though the same is mandatory.
In addition, notwithstanding Rule 150(v) of GFR, the submission of bids was initially
open only for two weeks instead of the mandatory three weeks. Since only a single bid
was received, the Charged Officer got the bidding window extended by another 6 days to
4:30 PM on 27/11/2012. However, it had been the practice of this University to re-tender
in events wherein only one bid is received (Report, p. 64). The funds for the said
expenditure were University Grants Commission (“UGC”) Funds and, therefore, the
GFR should have been followed by the University (Report, p. 72).
Notwithstanding the said extension, there was no actual competition amongst the two
tenders, i.e., M/s. Curtain Centre and M/s. Nundy’s. While M/s. Curtain Centre submitted

 Tender Form No. 2 at 4:00 PM on 27/11/2012, M/s. Nundy’s submitted Tender Form No.
5 at 4:20 PM on 27/11/2012 (Report, p. 78), exactly 10 minutes before the expiry of the
new deadline. Moreover, Tender Form No. 2 with a different quotation was submitted
first on 21/11/2012 by M/s. Curtain Centre and was then resubmitted on 27/11/2012
(Report, p. 78). It is also important to note that M/s. Nundy’s quotation was almost double
of M/s. Curtain Centre’s quotation. Even after the extension the cumulative tender period
was still a total of 19 days, while it should have been at least 21 days in light of Rule
150(v) GFR.
Furthermore, the current VC was not informed that ‘vinyl’ flooring was being done for
room number 227 (Moot Court Hall) as opposed to the originally stipulated ‘tarkett’
flooring (Report, p. 77). This deviation was made on express clearance from the Charged
Officer, violated clause 3 of the Work Order that was issued to M/s. Curtain Centre and
unfairly enriched M/s. Curtain Centre at the cost of the University. Yet, the Charged
Officer did not execute the penal provisions for such a violation stipulated under the Work
Order in order to unduly benefit M/s. Curtain Centre. Therefore, due to the illegalities
committed by the Charged Officer, the University suffered massive financial loses.
3. Purchase of 106 Carrier ACs at an exorbitant price – The Charged Officer also caused
the University to buy 106 Carrier ACs at an exorbitant price from Mr. Tapas Saha, who
was already known to the Charged Officer. In his note dated 08/06/2011, he wrote, “L1
for Voltas 3 star will be lower by Rs. 500/- visa vis Carrier machines. Since carrier is a
better machine, we may purchase such, with a long term view” (Report, p. 133). The then
Vice Chancellor, Prof. M.P. Singh in his note dated 10/06/2011 replied, “as we had been
relying on Voltas so far and it is also L1, let us follow the same norm” (Report, p. 133).
After the Infrastructural Development Committee meeting dated 07/02/2013 a new file on
the issue was opened. In his note dated 19/03/2013, the Charged Officer writes, “a
meeting may be called for settling final price with Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd. To note
that Carrier machines have copper wires as compared to other make with aluminium
wires. Copper is more efficient and we may go for such” (Report, p. 124). Nowhere in the
new IDC file did the Charged Officer mention about the aforementioned note left by Prof.
M.P. Singh. In his note dated 21/03/2013 to the current VC, he wrote, “we need to
provide LOI immediately to avail pre budget prices. This may be treated as priority for
booking of prices done immediately for Carrier ACs as proposed above for 10+90 units”.
The Inquiry Officer observes that the Charged Officer very cleverly in his note dated

 19/03/2013, “almost settled himself that he will procure Carrier brand AC machines and
thus made the note that a meeting may be called for settling final price with Carrier
Midea India Pvt. Ltd. As Carrier machines have copper wires as compared to other make
with aluminium wires and copper is more efficient” (Report, p. 141).
In doing so, the Charged Officer betrayed the trust of the current VC by supressing Prof.
M.P. Singh’s note, bypassed statutory University authorities viz. the EC and the FC and
deviated from the well-established University practices in such matters. His actions,
therefore, amount to dereliction of statutory duties under Section 5(xxxvi), Clauses 20(3)
(a) and 20(3)(h) of the Schedule to the NUJS Act, 1999.
4. Illegal appointment of Ms. Soma Karmakar – The Charged Officer acted illegally right
from the beginning in the process of appointment of his Personal Assistant. First, he
ignored the then Assistant Registrar (Admin.), Mr. Sidhartha Guha’s suggestion regarding
informing Employment Exchange about the vacancy. He failed to follow the guidelines
regarding wide publication of the vacancy laid down by the Supreme Court of India
(Report, p. 190).
Second, the then Vice Chancellor, Prof. M.P. Singh had added a note to the final draft for
advertisement for position of Personal Assistant to Registrar, adding that preference being
given to candidates knowing shorthand (Report, p. 85). However, Ms. Soma Karmakar’s
application documents show that she did not know shorthand.
Third, Ms. Soma Karmakar had already worked as Charged Officer’s Personal Assistant
(since 2009) when the latter was working at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences,
Calcutta (Report, p. 195A). The Charged Officer never revealed his previous association
with Ms. Soma Karmakar to the EC or the then Vice Chancellor Prof. M.P. Singh.
Exhibits 14 and EO-1 show that the Charged Officer prepared short list of candidates
(Report, p. 192) and interviewed her along with Prof. M.P. Singh and Prof. M.K. Sinha, in
absence of any other form of screening (Report, p. 195A).
On the other hand, the Inquiry Officer notes that there were multiple candidates out of the
total 54 who had certificates of both shorthand and stenography (Report, p. 191). The
Inquiry Officer has specifically mentioned that out of the new applicants those bearing
serial no. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 20, 27, 29, & 30, and out of the old ones those bearing serial
no. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, & 17, were better than the 10 candidates who were shortlisted
by the Charged Officer (Report, p. 191). Even out of the shortlisted candidates, those

 bearing serial no. 3, 8, 9, and 10, were better than Ms. Soma Karmakar (Report, p. 191).
The Inquiry Officer also opines that a wrong was done to Ms. Molly Nandi, the internal
NUJS candidate, who was not even shortlisted for the interview, even though she had a
certificate in both shorthand and stenography which Ms. Soma Karmakar evidently
lacked (Report, p. 192).
Charged Officer’s illegalities defy the basic principles of natural justice and amount to
dereliction of statutory duties under Section 5(xxxvi) and Clauses 20(3)(a) & 20(3)(h) of
the Schedule to the NUJS Act, 1999. Exhibit 69 and the Charged Officer’s observations
thereof clearly establish the illegitimate relationship between Ms. Soma Karmakar and the
Charged Officer (Report, p. 194). Therefore, the Charged Officer’s illegalities in this
regard amount to clear dereliction of statutory duties.
In the Extraordinary Meeting of NUJS Executive Council dt. June 18, 2016, a unanimous
resolution to dismiss the Charged Officer from service was passed. In its order dt. July 11,
2016, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court kept questions, as to the jurisdiction of the Vice
Chancellor, et al., open. The High Court allowed the University to give effect to the order of
dismissal not before expiry of the next seven days (July 18, 2016), subject of course to a
further order, if any.
On July 15, 2016, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court stayed dismissal till July 29, 2016 in light
of the Charged Officer’s writ (W.P. No. 12652 (W) of 2016). However, on July 26, 2016, the
High Court upheld the dismissal and allowed the University to dismiss the Charged Officer
thereby dismissing the writ.