HEMENDRA CHAUDHURY Vs. ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY JORHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the petition a prayer has been made to set aside the charge-sheets dated 16. 12. 2000 and second charge-sheet dated 9. 2. 2002, Inquiry Report, the impugned order dated 20. 1. 2003 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service by the In-charge Registrar, Assam Agricultural University and further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 24. 6. 2003 brought before the Court by way of amendment application (enclosed as Misc. Case No. 2255/2003), whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in Assam Biswanath College of Agriculture and was placed under suspension on 23. 10. 2000 in reference to Rule 6 (1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 in short called 'rules 1964' for committing forgery forwarding his application to the Deputy Director General, ICAR, New Delhi under the false Memo number in the name of the University and purported to have issued by the signature of the forwarding authority. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice without enclosing list of documents and witnesses to be relied upon. By order dated 16. 12. 2000 (Annexure-3) the petitioner was excepted to give his response within ten days. Consequently, on 26. 12. 2000, the petitioner made a request for furnishing all the documents, note-sheets etc. referred in the charge-sheet. In that reference on 11. 1. 2001, the Deputy Registrar, informed the petitioner to indicate what documents were to be inspected. Therefore, on 13. 3. 2001 (Annexure-6) the petitioner demanded letter No. 9 (I) 2000-Edn. III dated 25. 8. 2000 and letter No. AAU/r-1283/3180-81 dated 8. 8. 2000. It appears in reference to request dated 23. 5. 2001 the petitioner was allowed inspection of note-sheets. During inspection on 25. 5. 2001, the petitioner was alleged to have taken out some document said to be the undertaking dated 8. 9. 2000 (wherein the petitioner has admitted his guilt) and the petitioner is alleged to have made some interpolation by striking word "you" in such letter. According to the petitioner to the best of his knowledge, no appointing authority said to have been appointed to enquire the matter however, this aspect has been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. However, the petitioner was intimated on 22. 8. 2001 that he has to appear before Dr. B. Barman, Chief Scientist who was to hold enquiry. On the said day, the petitioner has appeared with written statement and subsequently on 27. 8. 2001 (Annexure-11-A) had also written to the Registrar to allow to adduce more documents and additional reply. The first show-cause notice dated 18. 2. 2002 (Annexure-17) was served with first undated inquiry report (Annexure-17-A) to give response within ten days. On the basis of the inquiry report finalized by Dr. B. Barman, Chief Scientist (Annexure-17-A) the Vice-Chancellor of the University said to have formed an opinion to remove the petitioner from service. It appears that different dates were fixed enquiry in connection to the second show cause in respect of the second incident which took place on 22. 5. 2001; 12. 9. 2002 was fixed for preliminary enquiry and on the prayer of the petitioner hearing was deferred for 11. 12. 2002 however, on that day the petitioner could not present, and request was made for deferment of inquiry but the ex-parte enquiry was concluded and inquiry report dated 23. 11. 2002 (Annexure-35-A) was served to the petitioner by letter dated 3. 12. 2002 which is placed as Annexure-35. Relying upon both the inquiry report, the Incharge Registrar i. e. the disciplinary authority terminated the service of the petitioner vide order dated 20. 1. 2003 (Annexure-37 ). Hence the writ petition.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the 'rules 1964' has provided the provisions of the disciplinary proceeding and appeal. Section 6 deals with the suspension. Section 7 deals with the nature of penalties. Section 8 deals with the disciplinary authority. Section 9 deals with the procedure for imposing penalties. For convenience, the provision of Section 9 are extracted herein below :