Ramani Kumar Sarma vs The Guwahati University And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1036 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010229912016




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : WP(C)/4078/2016

            RAMANI KUMAR SARMA
            S/O LT. M.M. SARMA, R/O A.E. COLLEGE CAMPUS, JALUKBARI, GHY-13,
            DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE GUWAHATI UNIVERSITY and 2 ORS.
            REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, GUWAHATI UNIVERSITY, JALUKBARI,
            GUWAHATI, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781014

            2:THE REGISTRAR
             GUWAHATI UNIVERSITY
             JALUKBARI
             DIST- KAMRUP METRO
            ASSAM
             PIN- 781014

            3:THE VICE CHANCELLOR
             GUWAHATI UNIVERSITY
             JALUKBARI
             DIST- KAMRUP METRO
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78101

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.A N CHOWDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent :

Page No.# 2/4

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

Date : 24-03-2022

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and 3 being the authorities in the Gauhati University.

2. The petitioner at the time of institution of the writ petition was the Superintending Engineer in the Gauhati University. But during the pendency of the writ petition he had superannuated from service in the month of August, 2016.

3. Without going into the details leading to this writ petition, it would be suffice to take note of that there was an order of suspension against the petitioner dated 13.02.2014. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. In course of the said departmental proceeding there is an order dated 26.08.2014 of the Enquiry Officer appointed for the purpose. Pursuant to the departmental proceeding by the order dated 17.09.2015, the order of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner.

4. The said order was assailed in WP(C)No.5620/2015 resulting in the judgment dated 17.09.2015 by which a conclusion was arrived at that the Page No.# 3/4

procedure required under the law was not duly followed in arriving at the order of penalty. In paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 17.09.2015, a conclusion was arrived at that no notice is required to be given to the delinquent at the stage of imposition of the penalty, which, in fact, was done in the case of the petitioner. The Court was of the view in paragraph 17 that the petitioner may be provided with a copy of the enquiry report and thereupon he be given an opportunity to submit his response. The authorities thereafter was required to take note of the objections that the petitioner may raise against the enquiry report and pass a reasoned order on the acceptability of the objection. After following the said procedure, the authorities may pass the order leading to the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. It was also understood that while giving the petitioner the opportunity to raise his objection against the enquiry report, he would also be given an opportunity of hearing.

5. This writ petition is instituted being aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2016, whereby it was again reiterated that the petitioner was given the opportunity to make representation on the proposed penalty and upon considering the reply that the petitioner may have given, the order of penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner. The order dated 23.06.2016 is assailed on the same ground that the required opportunity to represent against the enquiry report had not been given to the petitioner and acting in a manner contrary to the provisions of the earlier judgment of the Court, opportunity to object on the imposition of penalty was given, but no opportunity to raise any objection against the enquiry report was given to the petitioner.

Page No.# 4/4

6. Considering the matter in its entirety, we interfere with the order dated 23.06.2016 of the Registrar, Gauhati University imposing the order of penalty of compulsory retirement and again remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise objection against the enquiry report and after considering the objections that the petitioner may raise and also giving him an opportunity of hearing, the authorities may pass any reasoned order on the acceptability of the enquiry report and from that stage onwards proceed further with the disciplinary proceeding to bring the matter to its logical end.

7. Writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant