The judgment establishes the fundamental principle that adherence to natural justice and fair procedure is essential in employment matters, and departure from these principles must be justified by compelling circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The petitioner prays for cancellation of an order passed by the Registrar (acting), Visva-Bharati University on 13.08.2019 by which the petitioner's engagement as Casual Labourer with Temporary Status (CLTS) at the University was discontinued with effect from 01.08.2017. The impugned letter of discontinuation was stated to be pursuant to an order of the competent authority dated 01.08.2017 and in line with the recommendations made by the Enquiry Committees referred to in the impugned letter.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the letter of discontinuation has been issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without the petitioner being given a chance to lead evidence. a show cause Notice was issued upon the petitioner on 27.04.2019 and was replied to by the petitioner on 08.05.2019. Counsel places the reply by which the petitioner requested the acting Registrar of the University to supply a copy of the complaint filed against the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner was suspended on 01.08.2017 and copies of the Reports filed by the Enquiry Committees dated 01.08.2017 and 05.08.2017. Counsel submits that the prayer for extension of time to file the reply, after being furnished with these documents, was not responded to and the impugned letter of discontinuation was issued on 13.08.2019. Counsel submits that the petitioner has not been informed of the nature of the complaint and the impugned letter should be set aside on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice. Counsel relies on the Service Rules for Non-academic Employees of Visva-Bharati to urge that the petitioner has a right to the Enquiry Reports and to lead evidence.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that this is a fit case where the disciplinary authority was entitled to dispense with the enquiry in exercise of discretionary powers conferred upon it as it was not practical to hold an enquiry or disclose the Reports of the Committees to the petitioner. Counsel dwells on the limited scope of judicial review in cases of suspension and the fact that the Court does not act as an appellate authority to substitute its view in place of the decision taken by the disciplinary authority. Counsel relies on an affidavit filed by the assistant Registrar of the respondent University to bring on record the social background of the girl child of the Santosh Pathsala under the University. Counsel submits that the girl student belongs to the OBC category and lives with her mother. It is further submitted that the mother of the girl child appeared before the three-member Committee set up by the University and refused to lodge any complaint with the police authorities in view of the social stigma which may be caused to the family. Counsel submits that the University administration took the decision to suspend the petitioner since a full-fledged investigation by the police might traumatize the child.

4. From the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the University, the issue germane to the present proceeding is whether the petitioner's service could have been discontinued without following due process. The documents on record which would reflect only a part of the facts - the remainder of the facts being submitted by counsel - are the show cause Notice, the petitioner's reply to such Notice and the impugned letter of discontinuation. The nature of the complaint and the alleged offence committed by the petitioner has been stated in the affidavit which has subsequently been filed on behalf of the University but without the actual documents in support of the statements made. No other documents have been submitted in this proceeding pointing to the facts which have been vigorously urged on behalf of the respondent. The fact that the petitioner was discontinued from his engagement in a summary manner in order to avoid causi