THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY Vs. BICHITRA RAM MEDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is by the defendant, the Gauhati University, and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Gauhati. The plaintiff, Bichitra Ram Medhi, brings a suit for declaration that his dismissal from service under the University is "wrongful, illegal and inoperative and that he should be deemed to continue in service". He also claims a sum of Rs. 1,935.50 P. being arrears of pay and emoluments during the period of suspension. His case may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) The plaintiff was a peon under the Gauhati University from 22-1-57 and he was confirmed in that post on 22-1-60. The Academic Registrar of the University, by his letter No. 6/OA/9521 dated 24-6-63, put him under suspension. Thereafter the Registrar drew up proceedings against him on three charges, namely, that on 22-6-63 during office hours the plaintiff threatened Office Assistant, S.K. Chakravarty, in his office room in presence of other office Assistants, (2) that he was found negligent in his duty and was lined on 9-4-58 and 21-4-59 and even then there was no improvement, and (3) that he was irregular in attendance. He was asked to submit his explanation which he did. He stated in his explanation that he was not supplied with any copy of the complaint, if any, filed by S.K. Chakravarty, aforesaid, or any other office Assistant, and that he was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the plaintiff further avers, the Registrar by his Memo No. Est/OA,/65/15277 dated 2-9-65, terminated the service of the plaintiff in the University with effect from 21-7-65. The plaintiff contends that in dismissing him from his service of the University, the authority violated the principles of natural justice as reasonable opportunities were denied to him and that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. He further contends that he was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct, mis-behaviour and for making a "false statement". His case is that at no stage of the proceedings there was any charge against him for making "false statement."

(3.) According to him, the dismissal is wrongful and illegal. He, therefore, files the instant suit for declaration as aforesaid and also claims arrears of pay* and emoluments as mentioned earlier.