The main legal point established in the judgment is that an administrative order of dismissal must not be stigmatic and punitive, violating the principles of natural justice. The court also emphasized the importance of completing the disciplinary proceeding before making a termination decision.

JUDGMENT

Soumen Sen, J. - The precedence of "substance over from" in scrutinising an administrative order of dismissal in relation to the service of a probation officer is the subject matter for consideration in this appeal.

2. The appeal is arising out of an order dated 19th June, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner challenging, inter alia, a resolution adopted by the Syndicate of the University of Calcutta on 20th March, 2019 and communicated to the petitioner by a memo dated 20th March, 2019 issued by the Registrar (Acting) of the University of Calcutta.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the writ petitioner was appointed on probation to the post of Deputy Controller of Examinations in the University for a period of one year from the date of the petitioner joining the post, which could be terminated with one month's notice from either end. The probation period, however, could be extended for a further period of one year, if necessary, and the confirmation of the service would be considered, subject to the satisfactory completion of the probationary period by the writ petitioner.

4. The respondent was entrusted with the responsibility of looking after examination-related matters in the month of February, 2018. On 15th June, 2018 a show-cause notice was issued to him in terms of Ordinance 74 of Chapter XV of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979 (in short "the Ordinance 74") in view of wrong question papers being printed and distributed in the Journalism and Mass Communication (JORG) Paper II examination. The respondent replied to the same on 28th June, 2018. By a letter dated 20th July, 2018, he was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 27th July, 2018 and on the same date a charge-sheet was handed over to him. He replied to the said charge-sheet on 3rd August, 2018. On 6th August, 2018 he attended a hearing fixed before the Enquiry Officer, but no enquiry report was served upon him and the proceeding was kept pending.

5. On 12th September, 2018 the respondent submitted a representation to consider his claim towards confirmation. The University thereafter extended the petitioner's probationary period for six months by a letter dated 10th October, 2020, with retrospective effect from 22nd September, 2018. One day prior to the expiry of the extended period, a memo dated 20th March, 2019 was issued to the petitioner discontinuing his services by the Registrar (Acting) of the University enclosing a copy of the resolution of the Syndicate dated 20th March, 2019.

6. Record reveals that the writ petition was admitted on 21st June, 2019, with a direction towards exchange of affidavits. It was also directed that the petitioner's claim would abide by the result of the writ petition. Subsequent thereto, the affidavits were exchanged by the parties.

7. The post of Deputy Controller of Examinations for SC category in which the petitioner was appointed on probation is still vacant.

8. The contention of the respondent/writ petitioner, before the learned Single Judge appears to be that after considering the respondent's reply to the show-cause notice dated 15th June, 2018, a charge-sheet was issued on 20th July, 2018, to which the respondent duly replied and also appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 6th August, 2018. But subsequent thereto, no enquiry report was supplied to him and no final decision was taken. Prior to conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, the University could not have discontinued the service of the writ petitioner on the foundation of the charges alleged in the said proceeding and without granting any opportunity of hearing. The acts constituting misconduct as alleged against the writ petitioner in the impugned resolution dated 20th March, 2019 were within the knowledge of the authorities on 10th October, 2018 when the respondent's probationary period was extended for a period of six months, w.e.f. 22nd September, 2018. T