IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of service without a mandatory inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and authorities must justify any bypassing of these procedures.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned standing counsel, Gauhati University, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding, is to an order, dated 24.09.2020, issued by the Registrar, Gauhati University, terminating the service of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, read with Rule 46 of the Gauhati University Employees Service Conditions, Conduct and Appeal Rules, 1970.

3. The petitioner, herein, pursuant to a process of selection, was appointed as a Cook in the Gauhati University vide order, dated 28.05.1988. The petitioner joined his service on 02.06.1988 and was attached to the Accounts Branch of the said University. The service of the petitioner was utilized by the Gauhati University in various Branches of the University as a Peon. The service of the petitioner was regularized vide order, dated 01.04.1995 w.e.f. 02.08.1991 and subsequently, he was confirmed in his service vide order, dated 03.09.1998 w.e.f. 02.06.1992.

4. The petitioner, on account of ailments suffered by him, could not join his duties w.e.f. 06.02.2019 to September, 2019. It is contended that the petitioner had informed his superiors of the reasons for such absence. The authorities on account of the fact that the petitioner had remained absent; issued notices on 06.05.2019, 23.05.2019, and 26.07.2019, requiring him to resume his service failing which, it was indicated that disciplinary action would be initiated against him. The wife of the petitioner, herein, approached the Superintendent, Establishment Branch of the Gauhati University, and explained the condition of the petitioner, to him. On being asked to submit a medical certificate; the said medical certificate was submitted before the respondent No. 5, through the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that although the medical certificate had reflected that he was fit to resume his duties, however, his physical condition did not permit to resume his service. Further notices came to be issued to the petitioner and thereafter, vide order, dated 24.09.2020, without institution of any departmental proceeding, the Registrar, Gauhati University, proceeded to terminate the service of the petitioner, herein.

5. Being aggrieved; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding.

6. Mr. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court through the notices so issued to the petitioner, herein, requiring him to resume his duties, has submitted that in the notices; the Gauhati University authorities had contended that in the event, the petitioner does not resume his duties; disciplinary action shall be so taken against him.

7. Mr. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel, by referring to the order, dated 24.09.2020, has submitted that the termination of the petitioner was so effected by the Gauhati University by invoking the powers under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. However, the learned counsel has contended that while the provisions of Rule 7 was so invoked, the mandatory provisions for holding an inquiry under Rule 9 of the said Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, was not followed in the matter.

8. Mr. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel, has further contended that no Show Cause Notice came to be issued under the provisions of Rule 9 to the petitioner, drawing up of a departmental proceeding against him on account of the purported misconduct of remaining unauthorizedly absent. The learned counsel has further submitted that after the imposition of the said penalty; the petitioner had approached the authorities of the Gauhati University, praying for modification of the order of termination so as to enable him to receive his pension and pensionary benefits. However, the respondent authorities only released to the petitioner; his gratuity and leav