SUSIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained against the charge sheet issued by the Registrar, Calcutta University, respondent no. 4, alleging various acts and/or irregularities in the matter of payments and also tampering of certain bills. This charge sheet has been assailed in this writ application on the ground that the same was issued by an officer not authorized under the Act to issue the same and also that the said charge sheet does not accompany statement of allegations whereon the charges are based and also on other allegations. On16. 9. 80 after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner an interim order was made in terms of prayer (d) of the petition for two weeks and the petitioner was directed to serve copies of the application on respondent nos. 1, 2, and 4. On 19.9.80 the interim order was varied after hearing the learned lawyers for all the parties to the extent that status quo as on this day be maintained. On 1.10.80 after hearing the learned Advocate for both the parties the prayer of the petitioner for amending the petition by incorporating necessary prayers was allowed and certain directions were made. Finally on 9. 7. 81 after hearing both the parties the instant Rules were issued and there was an interim order to the effect that the enquiry officer will complete the enquiry and submit his report before the disciplinary authority not later than ten weeks from 30.7.81 and within three weeks the disciplinary authority will pass final order in the matter. The disciplinary authority after passing the final order will serve a copy on the petitioner. The final order shall not be given effect to until further order of this Court. In accordance with this order final order of dismissal of the petitioner from his service was made by the Vice Chancellor, Calcutta University respondent no. 2, sometime in Septemted as Sports Officers in the Calcutta annexure B to the A. O. sworn by respondent no. 4 on 18.12.81.

(2.) The salient facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Sports Officer in the Calcutta University on 29.1.70 and he was confirmed in the post of Sports Officer by a resolution of the Syndicate at its meeting held in September 1970 and this was communicated to the petitioner by the then Assistant Registrar by a letter dated 5.1.71. This letter has been annexed as annexure A to the petition. Thereafter sometime in 1972 the Syndicate on the basis of the power conferred upon it by the Calcutta University Act 1966, created a full-time post of Programme Co-ordinator on a temporary basis within National Service Scheme (N. S. S.) with Fund placed at the disposal of the Calcutta University. Towards the end of 1972 the petitioner was taken in as a Programme Co-ordinator of the said National Service Scheme of the Calcutta University and he took over charge of the new office on 12.12.72. On that day the petitioner by a letter addressed to respondent no. 2 requested him to maintain his lien to the post Sports Officer of the Calcutta University while he joined his new post of Programme Co-ordinator of N. S. S. This was approved by the Vice-Chancellor as will appear from the letter annexed as annexure B to the petition. The post of Programme Co-ordinator was a purely temporary one the tenure of which now to be extended from time to time. In 1975 the petitioner's tenure of service as a Programme Co-ordinator was extended till the decision of the Syndicate and the petitioner had been continuing as such. The letter to that effect issued by the then Registrar of the Calcutta University dated 23.6.75. has been annexed as annexure C to the petition. It has been stated that the petitioner faithfully and with due deligence discharged his duties and responsibilities attached to his post as Programme Co-ordinator and in appreciation of his work the Registrar intimated him by a letter dated 27.5.80 that the Vice-Chancellor of the University appreciated his service and according to this desire the Registrar was convening thanks for such good service rendered by the petitioner. This letter has been annexed as annexure D to the petition. Thereafter on 29.8.80 a memo was sent by the Registrar, respondent no. 4, alleging charges of certain serious financial irregularities and also acts of gross negligence of duties against him and intimating that Vice-Chancellor has set up an Enquiring committee to enquire into the irregularities and to report to him within one month thereafter. In the said letter it has been further stated that the Vice-Chancellor directed that the petitioner be placed under suspension with immediate effect so as to ensure proper and fair enquiry. This memo, has been annexed as annexure E to the petition. It has been pleaded in the petition by the petitioner that the impugned memo, did not specify or stipulate the particulars about the allegations and charges levelled against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the impugned memo, did not direct the petitioner to answer any charges whatsoever and he has been kept in total darkness as to what specific charge was sought to be levelled against him in respect of which report has to be submitted. It has been further submitted that the petitioner as Programme Co-ordinator has nothing to do with any finance of the University and as such it is fantastic to allege that he was involved in financial irregularities. It has been further submitted that the charge-sheet did not accompany a statement of allegations with the result that it became very difficult for the petitioner to give a proper and effective reply to the alleged charges. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet which has been served in the meantime on the ground of vagueness and also on the ground that those charges were really based on the audit objection raised to which the petitioner duly replied and the same were duly considered by the authorities concerned and sent to the Government. It was thereafter submitted that this audit query could not be the basis of formation of a charge-sheet against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the charge-sheet was issued by the Registrar, respondent no. 4, who is not the disciplinary authority under the Calcutta university Act. and the Statutes and Ordinances framed thereunder and as such the charge-sheet is wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction and the impugned proceeding that was drawn on the basis of the said charge-sheet is also invalid and illegal.

(3.) On these statements and allegations and hearing the learned advocates for the parties, as I have said earlier, the instant Rule and the interim order as stated hereinbefore was made by this court.