Dismissal from service without issuing a chargesheet or affording an opportunity for a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice and established disciplinary procedures, leading to an invalid dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved that he has been dismissed from service by the respondent no. 3 without following the due process of law.

2. Facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner, who had initially been appointed to the post of Demonstrator on July 4, 1997, was later upgraded to the post of Lecturer on December 5, 2022.

3. The petitioner had made a requisite application under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter 'the CAS') and had obtained financial benefits thereunder.

4. Subsequently though, the petitioner was found to be ineligible, not having obtained the requisite qualifications, on account whereof he had been requested to refund the entire sum of Rs. 5,15,264/- being the additional amount received by the petitioner as part of the first CAS.

5. The petitioner had not challenged the request, nor had he challenged the refund which was obtained by the authorities from his salary.

6. However, the petitioner had become irregular in taking the lectures allotted to him and over a period of time the irregularity increased to an extent that the authorities had to take immediate steps to redress the acts of commission and/or omission of errant petitioner. The petitioner was asked by a show cause notice dated July 18, 2023 as to why he was reluctant to take the classes allotted to him and as to why he declined to take the class so allotted to him.

7. There was no reply from the petitioner to such show cause notice of July 18, 2023.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the authorities sent a second show cause notice dated January 4, 2024. This notice reminded the petitioner of the earlier show cause notice and stated that drastic action would be taken against him if a reply was not given within seven days. The petitioner's response to this reminder, issued on the very same day, was not only offensive but also threatening in nature.

9. The reply of the petitioner was discussed by the Governing Body and it was unanimously decided by the Governing Body to terminate the employment of the petitioner on May 3, 2024 with immediate effect and to finally settle the outstanding dues of the petitioner. It is in this factual matrix that the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the writ petition being WPA 18880 of 2024.

10. Mr. Samim Ahammed, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner has raised three principal issues which may be summarised as under:-

i. Violation of the process as specified in Rule 15 of the Service Rules of the respondent no. 3.

ii. The person issuing the show cause notice was not eligible as he had no jurisdiction to issue such notice.

iii. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case or refute the case made out by the respondents.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (2) SCC 330 and AIR Online 2023 CAL 167 .

12. Mr. Soumya Majumdar, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3, Mr. Yash Singhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. Deepan Kr. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5 have raised issues which may be summarised as under:-

i. Though no chargesheet had been issued, the purpose of the chargesheet had been fulfilled in the show cause notice itself.

ii. There is no question of any administrative malice nor bias on the part of any authority alleged, far less demonstrated by the petitioner.

iii. The person issuing the show cause notice was the officer-in-charge, who had been duly empowered with all administrative authority as is usually delegated to the post of principal of a government sponsore