The court established that the initiation of the Departmental Proceeding did not violate natural justice as per the Gauhati University Teachers Conduct Rules 1984, and the imposed penalties were proportionate to the charges proved.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 09.04.2011/12.04.2011 whereby the Registrar, Gauhati University had imposed penalties upon the Petitioner as enumerated therein.

2. The facts of the instant case as would be apparent from a perusal of the pleadings before this Court are that on 21.08.2006, a chargesheet was issued against the Petitioner charging the Petitioner with gross misconduct and moral turpitude and being unworthy to remain as a teacher of the Gauhati University. The Petitioner was asked to submit a reply to the said chargesheet within 10(ten) days from the receipt of the chargesheet and the Petitioner was also granted an opportunity to inspect any document if he desired within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of the letter with prior intimation to the Registrar, Gauhati University and it was also made clear that the Petitioner thereupon had to file his written reply within seven days from the date of inspection. To the said chargesheet, the statement of allegation was enclosed. The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 11.09.2006.

3. It further reveals from the record that on 31.3.2007, an advertisement was published in the english news daily “The Assam Tribune” whereby it was informed that an enquiry would be conducted in the Gauhati University Guest House at 11 AM, on 19th, 20th, 21st, 23rd and 24th of April’2007. This advertisement was issued by the Registrar, Gauhati University. Pursuant to the said advertisement, an enquiry proceeding was initiated and Dr. Y.K. Phukan was the Enquiry Officer. It reveals from the records that initially the Petitioner did not participate in the said enquiry proceedings and it is the case of the Petitioner that he had no knowledge that the said advertisement was in respect to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner.

4. In the meantime, in absence of the Petitioner the Enquiry Proceeding proceeded. However, the learned Enquiry Officer, prior to closing the enquiry proceeding and submission of report thought it appropriate to issue a communication to the Petitioner for which on 2.5.2007 the learned Enquiry Officer had issued a communication to the Petitioner to appear before him on 5.5.2007 at the Gauhati University Guest House. The Petitioner upon receipt of the said communication appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted a petition on 5.5.2007 stating inter-alia that he was completely at dark as regards the initiation of the enquiry proceeding and he requested for various documents and also requested that he may be allowed the assistance of a Defence Assistant. The Enquiry Officer initially refused for which the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 2224/2007.

5. This Court vide an order dated 16.05.2007 disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions which are reproduced herein under :-

“ The petitioner shall participate in the enquiry proceeding and the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority shall afford all reasonable opportunity of being heard by way of providing opportunity to engage defence counsel, furnishing required documents, if demanded by the petitioner and the right of cross examination of the witnesses. To be precise the concerned authority shall provide the petitioner with all reasonable opportunity to defend his case as per the procedure envisage under the relevant rules.”

6. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the Petitioner was furnished the relevant documents and he was also provided the assistance of a Defence Assistant. All the witnesses except one Smti. Krishna Rani Hazarika was cross-examined by the Defence Assistant for the Petitioner. It is relevant herein to mention that Smti. Krishna Rani Hazarika did not say anything in her deposition against the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Enquiry Report was submitted whereby it was held that Charge No. 3 was partly pr