Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Sanjib Bhattacharjee - Appellant
Versus
Assam University, - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7677 of 2019, 189 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2020
The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor did not have the authority to suspend the Registrar under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The Court also held that the Vice-Chancellor could place any employee of the University under suspension, by invoking the power conferred under Section 12(3) of the Act, if such act of suspension is immediately required to be taken. The Court further held that the requirement to take "immediate action" is sine qua non to the exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Court also held that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was not arbitrary, illegal, perverse and had been initiated mala-fide.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who was the Registrar of Assam University, Silchar, Assam, was placed under suspension by the University authorities by invoking power under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Acts and Statutes, vide order dated 04.10.2019 issued by the Registrar (In- Charge) of Assam University as directed/approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said suspension order by filing the first writ petition, W.P.(C) No.7677 of 2019. While the first writ petition was pending, the University authorities issued the memorandum of charges dated 09.12.2019 which has been challenged in the subsequent petition, W.P.(C) No.189 of 2020.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor did not have the authority to suspend the Registrar under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The Court also held that the Vice-Chancellor could place any employee of the University under suspension, by invoking the power conferred under Section 12(3) of the Act, if such act of suspension is immediately required to be taken. The Court further held that the requirement to take "immediate action" is sine qua non to the exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Court also held that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was not arbitrary, illegal, perverse and had been initiated mala-fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to suspend the Registrar under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965? 2. Whether the Vice-Chancellor could place any employee of the University under suspension, by invoking the power conferred under Section 12(3) of the Act? 3. Whether the requirement to take "immediate action" is sine qua non to the exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act? 4. Whether the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was arbitrary, illegal, perverse and had been initiated mala-fide?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor did not have the authority to suspend the Registrar under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The Court also held that the Vice-Chancellor could place any employee of the University under suspension, by invoking the power conferred under Section 12(3) of the Act, if such act of suspension is immediately required to be taken. The Court further held that the requirement to take "immediate action" is sine qua non to the exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Court also held that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was not arbitrary, illegal, perverse and had been initiated mala-fide.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the first writ petition, WP(C) No. 189/2020 by setting aside the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2019. The Court disposed of the second writ petition, the WP (C) No. 7677 of 2019 in terms of the observations and directions mentioned above.
JUDGMENT
N Kotiswar Singh, J. - Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, Ld. Advocate, for the writ petitioner in both the petitions. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Ld. Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.C. Keyal, Advocate, Standing Counsel, Assam University for the Respondents.
2. These two petitions, filed by the same petitioner were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgement considering that the issues involved in these petitions are closely interrelated.
3. In the first writ petition, W.P.(C) No.7677 of 2019, the suspension order of the petitioner has been challenged. In the second writ petition, W.P.(C) No.189 of 2020, the petitioner has challenged the memorandum of charges issued against him.
4. The petitioner is the Registrar of Assam University, Silchar, Assam, hereinafter referred as the "University". He was placed under suspension by the University authorities by invoking power under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Acts and Statutes, vide order dated 04.10.2019 issued by the Registrar (In- Charge) of Assam University as directed/approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
wxyz
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said suspension order by filing the first writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 7677 of 2019.
zyxw
5. While the first writ petition was pending, the University authorities issued the memorandum of charges dated 09.12.2019 which has been challenged in the subsequent petition, W.P.(C) No. 189 of 2020.
wxyz
Thus, this Court is called upon to examine the validity of the suspension order as well as the charges framed against the petitioner.
zyxw
6. The University authorities have filed their affidavits- inopposition in both the writ petitions contesting the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner also responded to the same by filing his replies.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University has submitted that in the meanwhile, the suspension order has been reviewed by the review authority on 26.12.2019 and accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor has issued an order on 31.12.2019 extending the period of suspension by another 90 days from the date of completion of initial period of suspension and as such, the first writ petition has become infructuous.
8. As far as the second writ petition is concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioner is yet to file his reply to the memorandum of charges and since it is at the stage of furnishing memorandum of chares, the second writ petition is premature and thus, not maintainable, relying on the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Ashok Kacker, (1995) Supp1 SCC 180 , State of Punjab and others vs. Ajit Singh, (1997) 11 SCC 368 , and Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 .
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has countered the said contestation contending that in the event there is an element of malice or mala fide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a chargesheet or if the concerned authority is so biased that the enquiry would be a mere farcical show and conclusions are well-known, in that event, law courts are otherwise, justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid harassment and humiliation of a public official, in support of which, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. V. K. Khanna and others, (2001) 2 SCC 330 .
10. In the light of the above broad positions taken by the contesting parties, the issues raised in these two petitions are to be considered and decided. This would necessitate delving a bit deeper into the factual details and respective submissions so advanced.
11. The petitioner has narrated the background facts preceding the issuance of the suspension order and framing of memorandum of charges.
wxyz
It has been stated that the petitioner was granted LTC for the bloke year 2018-2021 to visit Jaisalmer along with his family vide
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
