Point of Law: The word “misconduct” on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty.

JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel (since deceased) and Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General for the State of Assam, assisted by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and also heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

2. Challenging the legality and validity of (i) the order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure-4), by which the petitioner, who was the Vice Chancellor of Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University (KKHSOU for short), was suspended and (ii) show-cause notice dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-5), both issued by the Governor as Chancellor of KKHSOU, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Brief background facts as projected in the writ petition:

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief is that while the petitioner was working as a Professor in the Department of Foreign Language in Gauhati University, the petitioner was appointed as Director of Institute of Distance and Open Learning, Gauhati University (GUIODL for short), for two 5 (five) year term from 19.08.2006 to 2011 and from year 2013 to 31.01.2016. While working as Professor in the Department of Foreign Language in Gauhati University, the petitioner was selected and appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the KKHSOU for a three year term vide notification dated 06.03.2020, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Governor of Assam. On 11.03.2020, the petitioner was granted extraordinary leave by the Gauhati University and after obtaining lien from Gauhati University, the petitioner had joined in the post of Vice Chancellor of KKHSOU on the same day.

4. At the point of time when the petitioner was then working as Professor in the Department of Foreign Language in Gauhati University, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG for short) had submitted a report on Social, General and Economic (Non-PSUs) Sector for the year ending 31.03.2018, which was placed before the State Legislature. Amongst others, it was contained in the CAG report that during the period from 2010 to 2017, the GUIDOL had offered 21 courses, which were not approved by the statutory Council and course fees of Rs. 39.06 Crore had been collected from the students. The State Government had forwarded the said report to the Gauhati University. Thereafter, on 09.12.2019, the Executive Council of Gauhati University had constituted One Man Inquiry Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Hussain Saikia, former Chief Justice of High Court of Sikkim and High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to inquire into the anomalies indicated in the CAG report in respect of GUIDOL. On 28.09.2020, the said Inquiry Commission had submitted its report. Thereafter, by serving a charge-sheet dated 22.06.2021 on the petitioner, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated by Gauhati University against the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Gauhati University Teacher’s Conduct Rules, 1984 read with Rule 7 and 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

5. During the pendency of the Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner in respect of GUIDOL, vide order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure-4) issued by the Secretary to the Governor of Assam (respondent no. 6), the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect in exercise of power under Section 8(1) of the KKHSOU Act, 2005 read with Section 18 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915 and that until further orders and another Professor of the Department of Management of Gauhati University was allowed to function as the Vice Chancellor of the KKHSOU. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 had issued the impugned notice dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-5) to the petitioner, directing him to show cause within 15 (fifteen) days as to why appropriate action under law should not be inflicted upon the petitio