Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
Sasanka Saikia, S/o Late Kamakhya Prasad Saikia – Appellant
Versus
Gauhati University, Represented by its Vice Chancellor, Jalukbari, Guwahati, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned standing counsel, Gauhati University, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, namely, Shri Sasanka Saikia, has instituted this proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for following relief:-
(i) For setting aside and quashing the Notification dated 25.09.2021 bearing Memo. No GU/Estt/Notification/2021/5212 -5310 (Annexure - I),
(ii) For issuing direction to the respondent authorities to forthwith cancel/recall/rescind and/or otherwise forebear from giving effect to the impugned Notification dated 25.09.2021, bearing Memo No. GU/Estt/Notification/2021/5212 -5310 (Annexure - I) and/or,
(iii) For issuing direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue render his services in his respective post of 'Lower Division Assistant'.
Background facts:-
3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition, is adumbrated herein below:-
“After a due selection process, the petitioner was appointed as a 'Lower Division Assistant' on 20.01.2016, by the Registrar, Gauhati University in the Office of the Secret
A temporary employee is entitled to the same protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as permanent employees, especially against stigmatic termination without inquiry.
Termination of service without a mandatory inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and authorities must justify any bypassing of these procedures.
Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, reads as services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by....
A government servant cannot be dismissed without being informed of charges and given a reasonable opportunity to defend, as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Termination of a probationer does not require an inquiry unless it is punitive in nature; unsatisfactory performance alone does not constitute grounds for punitive action under Article 311(2).
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
