Court Clarifies Chapter V Rule 2 of Original Side Rules Is Directory, Not Mandatory; Administrative Enquiry Reports by Single Judges Not Judicial Orders
In a significant judgment dated September 11, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, through Mr. Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, clarified the scope and application of Chapter V Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules of the Court in the case of Rajender Kumar Dudeja v. High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner, Shri Rajender Kumar Dudeja, had challenged a disciplinary enquiry report filed against him by a sitting Single Judge of the Court in his administrative capacity and contended that the matter should be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges under the said rule.
The petitioner argued that judicial propriety, the involvement of serious questions of law, and the fact that the enquiry report was authored by a Single Judge necessitated referral to a Larger Bench. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12) to support his claim.
The Court, however, held that Chapter V Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules is not a mandate requiring referral of every matter to a Larger Bench. Instead, it is a directory guideline empowering a Single Judge to refer a matter only if he finds it can be heard more advantageously by a Bench of two or more Judges. The Court emphasized that the enquiry report in question was prepared in an administrative capacity and did not amount to a judicial order or pronouncement. Therefore, it did not warrant referral under the said rule or an appeal under service jurisprudence.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had not raised the issue of referral to a Larger Bench before the earlier co-ordinate Bench, which had already heard submissions on merits. The Court distinguished the present case from the Mary Pushpam judgment, noting that the Supreme Court's ruling related to judicial orders and binding precedents, which were not at issue here.
Regarding the petitioner's assertion of serious questions of law, the Court found no lack of confidence in its ability to decide such issues and affirmed that a Single Judge was competent to hear and determine the matter.
Consequently, the Calcutta High Court directed that the writ petition challenging the disciplinary enquiry report proceed before a Single Judge. The Court set timelines for affidavit-in-opposition and replies and fixed the matter for hearing on November 20, 2026.
This judgment provides clarity on the procedural scope of Chapter V Rule 2 and underscores the distinction between administrative reports by Judges and judicial orders, ensuring judicial discipline and avoiding unnecessary references to Larger Benches.
Bottom Line:
Original Side Rules of Calcutta High Court - Chapter V Rule 2 does not mandate referral of every matter to a larger Bench. It merely provides a guideline for situations where a Single Judge determines that a matter can be more advantageously heard by a Bench of two or more Judges.
Statutory provision(s):
Original Side Rules of Calcutta High Court Chapter V Rule 2, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865
Rajender Kumar Dudeja v. High Court at Calcutta, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979209
