PANNALAL CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, who, at there levant point of time, was working as the Registrar of the Regional Engineering College, Silchar, now National Institute of Technology has challenged an order dated 16.8.96 dismissing him from service. It must be noted at this stage that the writ petitioner had retired from service during the pendency of the present writ proceeding and, therefore, the relief, if any, that the writ petitioner may be entitled to would be notional as well as financial.

(2.) Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner in course of his very elaborate arguments, though has contended the impugned order of dismissal dated 16.8.96 to be contrary to law on a number of grounds and reasons, priority to one issue, which goes to the root of the matter, has been accorded by the learned counsel. As the arguments sought to be advanced in respect of all other issues, would become redundant if the aforesaid prime issue is decided in favour of the petitioner, this Court has considered it appropriate to take up the aforesaid core issue first reserving consideration of the other questions to later stage, if required.

(3.) The argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned dismissal of the petitioner would be wholly unauthorized in law, inasmuch as, the decision to dismiss the petitioner has been taken by the Principal of the College whereas under the norms in force, it is the Board of Governors, who alone would be competent to decide on the question of punishment to be imposed in respect of categories of employees to which the writ petitioner belongs. Mr. Bhattacharyya has tried to bring home the aforesaid point, i.e., that it is the Board of Governors, who would be ths competent authority to impose punishment, if any, by referring to the several resolutions taken in the earlier meetings of the Board of Governors to the above effect which resolutions have been placed on record. Mr. RP Kakaty, learned counsel for the Respondents, confronted with the decision of the Board as expressed in the earlier resolutions, has admitted the fact that it is the Board of Governors alone, who would be the competent authority to finally decide on the question of punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. The admitted fact that the Writ Petitioner was appointed by the Board and not by the Principal has been also relied upon as a supplementary plank of the argument that it is the Board of Governors alone who would be authorized to make the decision in question.