DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY, DIBRUGARH & OTHERS Vs. BHABANANDA BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15.2.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 3080 of 1993, thereby quashing the dismissal order dated 1.4.89 (Annexure XII to the writ petition) passed against the writ petitioner/respondent by the appellant-University.

(2.) Few basic facts may now be noted. The writ petitioner/respondent at the material time was serving as a Store Keeper of the stores in Planning and Construction Branch under the University Engineer (respondent No. 4 in the Civil Rule). By order dated 2.4.85 he was put under suspension, which was followed by serving the charge sheet on 18.7.85. The nature of charges against the writ petitioner/respondent were misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner/respondent submitted his explanation in writing on 9.8.85 denying the allegations. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and on completion thereof the writ petitioner/respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 1.4.89, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, as already noted above, allowed the writ petition quashing the order of dismissal. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned senior counsel, Mr. S.N. Bhuyan, appearing for the appellant-University raised the following points. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the delinquent was not provided reasonable opportunity of hearing is erroneous and not supportable by record. According to him all reasonable opportunity to defend was in fact extended to the writ petitioner/respondent, so much so, he had even cross examined the witnesses. Learned Single Judge has misinterpreted Rule 9 (9) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and misapplied the same to the facts of the present case. According to him, there was no violation of Rule 9 and as such the finding that Rule 9 (9) was violated is not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so, in face of the fact that the appellant had contended that the writ petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect and examine the records and this contention has not been examined in its proper perspective.