IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Dr Shakuntala Laskar C/o Shri Durlav Hazarika – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 3468 of 2012
Decided on : 22-08-2024
Disciplinary Action - Dismissal from Service - Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964; Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 - The Court found that the disciplinary authority failed to conduct a proper inquiry as mandated by the rules, leading to an unjust dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer turned assistant professor, faced dismissal based on allegations of misconduct during her leave. She claimed the allegations were unfounded and that proper procedures were not followed in the disciplinary process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court determined that the dismissal was based on a preliminary inquiry report rather than a formal inquiry, violating the procedural requirements of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority followed the proper procedures in dismissing the petitioner and whether the allegations against her were substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi: A preliminary inquiry report cannot serve as the basis for imposing a penalty like dismissal; proper procedures must be followed as per the relevant rules.
Result: The Court set aside the dismissal and the appellate order, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education, Assam appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 5.
2. The challenge made in the present proceeding is to an order dated 30.07.2011, by which the disciplinary authority, proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner, herein, basing on the allegations so leveled against her, vide a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2009. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to an order dated 18.01.2012, passed by the appellate authority, rejecting her appeal petition dated 02.11.2011; preferred against the said order dated 30.07.2011.
3. The facts in brief requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues, arising in the present proceeding are noticed as under:-
The petitioner, herein, had joined the Electrical Engineering Department, Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat, as a Lecturer in pursuance to a notification dated 30.09.1983. The petitioner, in the year 1984, came to be transferred to the Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College, in the same capacity. The petitioner acquired her M. Tech Degree in Instrumentation Engineering in the year 1980 from IIT Kharagpur and thereafter, the petitioner, came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College in the year 1993. It is to be noted that the petitioner, in the year 2002 had acquired a Ph. D Degree in Instrumentation Engineering.
The Instrumentation Engineering Branch having been so introduced in the Department of Electrical Engineering in the Assam Engineering College, the petitioner was assigned the responsibility to design courses and laboratories for offering the said course and she was the only faculty member in the department qualified to take classes in the branch of Instrumentation Engineering. It is contended that the petitioner took all requisite steps for a smooth conduct of the said course so introduced.
The respondent authorities, vide the notification dated 19.08.2005, proceeded to promote the Assistant Professors named therein, belonging to different departments of the Engineering Colleges of the State to officiate as Professors, under Regulation 4(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951. The name of the petitioner figured in the said list against the Electrical Engineering Department. The petitioner having been posted on her such promotion to Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat, given the problems she and her family stood to face in the event of her moving to Jorhat, the petitioner, applied before the competent authority for extension of joining time with a further request to post her on such promotion, at Assam Engineering College. The said prayer of the petitioner was regretted by the respondent authorities vide communication dated 15.09.2005. Under such circumstances, the petitioner proceeded to join against her promoted post of Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Jorhat Engineering College on 22.09.2005.
On two posts of Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Assam Engineering College, becoming vacant, the petitioner, applied for her transfer and posting against any one of the vacant posts so available. The said application of the petitioner was favorably recommended by the Director of Technical Education, Assam. However, the prayer so made by the petitioner was not favorably considered by the competent authority.
It is contended by the petitioner that the rejection of her transfer application caused a depression to her and the separation of her daughters from the petitioner, on account of her transfer to Jorhat Engineering College, affected her daughters both mentally and
Abbas Ali Vs. State Bank of India
Ashok Ram Parhad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Central Bank of India Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee
Kuldeep Singh Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committee
Narotam Chopra Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court& Ors.
Pyare Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Directors and Ors.
Raj Narain Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
T. S. Srivastava Vs. State of Assam
The Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem Vs. S.Arichandran& Ors.
A disciplinary authority must adhere to procedural requirements, and a preliminary inquiry cannot justify dismissal without a formal inquiry.
A public servant's unauthorized absence can lead to dismissal, even if procedural irregularities exist in the disciplinary process, if the absence is deemed as abandonment of duty.
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when authorities fail to comply with mandatory procedural rules, including the supply of enquiry reports to the delinquent officer. Reliance on findings from inq....
Termination of service without a mandatory inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and authorities must justify any bypassing of these procedures.
A major penalty cannot be imposed without following procedural requirements, including providing an opportunity for defense, as per the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreeing with an Inquiry Officer's findings to uphold natural justice.
Point of Law : Principles of natural justice as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules’1964 and under Article 311 of Constitution were not followed in as much as penalty was imposed based on report o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.