In a 12-page missive to the Board, Dalmiya not only questioned the neutrality of the Committee, but also termed it ''functus officio'' as it crossed its six-months timeframe to complete the proceedings.
BCCI sources told UNI, Mr Dalmiya in a letter to BCCI Secretary dated October 25, quoted extensively from the SLP No 2374 of 2006 filed by the State of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Dalmiya and Others.
''The complainant was authorised by the President (Sharad Pawar) to file the present complaint and therefore, no separate resolution was necessary,'' Mr Dalmiya observed that it was the BCCI President, who had actually filed the complaint before the Marine Drive Police Station in Mumbai through the BCCI Secretary and he is also the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee.
The BCCI President has been a party to the decision making process on this subject in the BCCI Working Committee Meetings. The other two members of the Committee, Vice-Presidents C Amin and Sashank Manohar, had also been a party.
The BCCI President then suspended him and the 76th AGM Annual report had a series of allegations and unwarranted comments were made on this subject issue against Mr Dalmiya, which obviously had the signed sanction of the President.
''Therefore the neutrality of the Disciplinary Committee can be questioned,'' he had written in the letter.
Secondly quoting Clause 38 (VII) of the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of the Board, the letter said as the period of six months within which the Board needed to solve the dispute ''the authority'' (BCCI and its Disciplinary Committee) has lost its jurisdiction and has become 'functus officio'.
Hence there could be no adjudication pending against Mr Dalmiya, as per law. Mr Dalmiya urged that BCCI should first examine the jurisdictional issue before taking up the showcause notice into consideration, the letter stated.
Mr Dalmiya was not available for comment.
However, sources close to Mr Dalmiya told UNI, ''Under the circumstances mentioned above neither could he be asked to appear nor the alleged proceedings could be proceeded with any further, until the Board decided on the foregoing issues and communicated the reasoned decision. Mr Dalmiya is supposed to have written this in his letter.''
''Mr Dalmiya is not against appearing before any committee. But such Committee should be neutral, preferably appointed by the Hon'ble Court.''