Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath ... vs Visva-Bharati & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2961 Cal

18.05.2022
 Ct. 5
 D/L 16
  ab

                                   WPA 8785 of 2022

                 Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal
                                     -Vs-
                             Visva-Bharati & Ors.

             Mr. Arunava Ghosh,
             Mr. Puspal Chakraborty,
             Mr. Prisanka Ganguly
                                                      ... for the petitioner


                   The     affidavit   of   service   indicates   that   the

             respondent University has been served. No one appears

for the University.

The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. First,

the petitioner is aggrieved by the communication of 11th

April, 2022 by which the petitioner has been continued

to be treated as a suspended employee of the University.

Second, the study leave prayed for by the petitioner was

not granted by the University by the communication of

4th May, 2022 on the basis that the petitioner is under

suspension.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

places the judgment and order passed by this Court on

30th March, 2022 in WPA 1668 of 2022 (Rajesh K. V. @

Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal Vs. Visva-Bharati & Ors),

by which, upon a contested hearing, the Court opined

that the defect of jurisdiction of the Registrar (Acting)

not having the power to initiate disciplinary proceeding,

nullifies all steps taken by the Registrar (Acting). The

charge-sheet and the order of suspension were found to

be without any authority and quashed on that basis.

The impugned document of 11th April, 2022 from the

Registrar (Acting) of the University states that the

University has decided to prefer an appeal from the

aforesaid judgement and order. According to counsel,

no information is available as to the filing of any appeal

by the University.

In view of the above, this Court is, therefore, of

the view that in the absence of challenge to the

judgment and order passed by this Court, the

University cannot claim any right to treat the petitioner

as a suspended employee. The petitioner shall hence be

entitled to enter the University and resume the work,

which the petitioner was doing before the order of

suspension was passed against him. The petitioner

shall also be entitled to salary and other consequential

benefits as an employee of the University. The

University is directed to allow the petitioner to resume

classes as the petitioner was doing before the impugned

order was passed against him.

This order shall be subject to the result of any

appeal filed by the University in the meantime.

List this matter on 16th June, 2022.

( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)