BHOGIRATH PATOWARI Vs. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The extent and content of power under sub-section (4) of Section 8-B of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 is the issue raised in this proceeding.

(2.) By an order dated 25.10.95, the petitioner was appointed as Treasurer of the Gauhati University for a period of five years from the date of joining or till the age of sixty years, whichever was earlier. It seems there was a serious controversy regarding the age of the petitioner and the University Workmen's Union, hereinafter referred to as the Union, agitated over the: matter . The matter was deliberated upon by the Executive Council and the Executive Council in its meeting resolved to superannuate the petitioner with effect from 1.1.98 on his attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was intimated about this decision by a letter dated 6.8.97 and advised him to explain as to why the above resolution should not be given effect to. By a letter dated 11.8.97, the earlier communication dated 6-8-97, was superseded and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why actions, as proposed, should not be taken against him to implement the resolution of the Executive Council. The petitioner submitted his show cause. The Executive Council in addition, also heard the petitioner in person on 16-12-97 and thereafter by its resolution dated 26-12-97, revoked the earlier resolution dated 19-7-97, and decided to seek the opinion of the Advocate General. Accordingly, the Executive Council constituted a Committee to extend its assistance to the leaned Advocate General. The decision of the Executive Council was not to the liking of the Union and, therefore, the Union decided to continue with its agitation by a fresh programme and the University was accordingly informed by a Notice. Situated thus, the University by its office order dated 10.1.98 asked the petitioner to proceed on leave with effect from 10.1.98 until further orders. Subsequently, the Registrar by his letter dated 12.1.98, superseded his earlier office communication dated 10.1.98 and served the petitioner with the office order dated 12.1.98 as per order of the Vice Chancellor. The office order of the Vice Chancellor which is impugned in this writ proceeding reads as follows :

(3.) The University contested the case, submitted its affidavit and defended its action. According to the University, the petitioner could not have continued in service and ought to have superannuated as far back as on 31st March, 1996 but for the deceitful act of the petitioner. In the Matriculation Certificate issued by the University on 4th July, 1955, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 18 (eighteen) years 11 (eleven) months on 1st March, 1955, Subsequently, the petitioner managed correct his age showing as 13 (thirteen) years 10 (ten) months and 16 (sixteen) days as on March, 1955 by playing fraud. The Union coming to know about rectification of the age of the petitioner, requested the University authority for appropriate action and accordingly adopted and forwarded a resolution to that effect. The University took a resolution on 9-12-97 requesting the Executive Council, hereinafter referred to as the EC, to finally settle the issue regarding service tenure of the petitioner. The EC accordingly on 19.7.97, decided to superannuate the petitioner with effect from 1.1.98 on his attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner asking him for his explanation. The respondents considered the Show Cause reply and also heard the petitioner-in-person; and thereafter, decided to revoke the earlier decision dated 19.7.97 and decided to refer the entire matter to the learned Advocate, General for his opinion.