RABINDRA NATH BARMAN Vs. GAUHATI HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is presently working as Deputy Registrar in the Principal Seat of this Court, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by Hon?ble the Chief Justice imposing punishment of reversion in Grade from Deputy Registrar to Assistant Registrar as the junior most in the said cadre and for treating his period of suspension as on duty with pay equivalent to the allowances already paid during that period.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Aizawl Bench of this Court on 01.09.1990 and thereafter, was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 03.03.1992. He was appointed as Secretary to Hon?ble the Chief Justice on 16.12.1997. Vide order dated 18.07.2003 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from 12.08.2002. While discharging his duties as Secretary to Hon?ble the Chief Justice in the Principal Seat at Guwahati the petitioner took admission into the 1st year and 2nd year LL.B. Course on 12.11.2001 and 11.11.2002, respectively, in Royal Academy of Law, Oinam, District- Bishnupur in the State of Manipur. The petitioner on 23.04.2003 filed an application before the Registrar General of this Court seeking permission to study the LL.B. Course for the session 2002-03 without hampering his normal official duties as Secretary to Hon?ble the Chief Justice contending that though pursuant to the earlier permission granted by the Registry he took admission, he, however, could not prosecute the study due to some personal difficulties and complete the Course. The Registrar (Administration) on 02.06.2003, on the basis of the said application, granted permission to prosecute the study in LL.B. Course without affecting the normal duties in any manner with further condition that the said permission may be withdrawn at any time in the interest of service, if so required. The petitioner after completion of the Course and obtaining the degree of Bachelor of Law from Manipur University in the year 2005 filed an application on 02.05.2005 before the Registrar General for recording the said qualification in his Service Book. The Registrar (Administration), thereafter, vide communication dated 01.10.2005 asked the petitioner to furnish a copy of the purported permission accorded to him to prosecute law studies as, according to the Registry, it was subsequently found that though in the application dated 23.04.2003 the petitioner mentioned about granting of the permission by the Registry to prosecute study, no such permission was available. By the said communication the petitioner was also asked to furnish information relating to the period during which he attended the college in Manipur; his total days of attendance, month-wise and year-wise and the leave, if any, availed by him during the period of his study in Manipur. The petitioner vide communications dated 05.10.2005 and 07.11.2005 replied to the aforesaid communication dated 01.10.2005. On 16.11.2005 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of drawal of the departmental proceeding.

(3.) The disciplinary authority upon consideration of the replies filed by the petitioner decided to hold a departmental proceeding against him and accordingly the Registrar General issued the show cause notice on 23.06.2006 under Rule 23 of the Gauhati High Court Service (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (in short, "1967 Rules") read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why any of the penalties laid down in Rule 22 of the said Rules should not be inflicted on him on the charges mentioned therein. The petitioner was also supplied with the statement of allegation and the list of witnesses and list of documents to be relied upon by the disciplinary authority in the said proceeding, alongwith the aforesaid charge memo dated 23.03.2006. The petitioner submitted his reply on 08.04.2006. Those charges, however, were amended, which was communicated by the Registrar General on 29.05.2006 to the petitioner, thereby leveling 5 (five) charges against him. The statement of allegation, additional list of witnesses and additional list of documents were also furnished to the petitioner alongwith the said amended charge memo. The petitioner, on 30.06.2006 in continuance of his earlier reply dated 08.04.2006, submitted the written statement of defence denying the charges levelled against him and requesting the disciplinary authority to drop the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him by revoking the order of suspension with all service benefits.