Compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice is essential in disciplinary proceedings, and any dismissal or penalty imposed must be in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for review of the order dated 29.07.2016, passed in L.P.A. No. 417 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the order dated 16.09.2014, passed in W.P. (S) No. 3897 of 2014 was set aside.

3. The factual aspects of the case has been visited by us and the same reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Scientist cum Assistant Professor in Birsa Agricultural University. The petitioner was transferred and posted at Zonal Research Station, Dumka on 25.08.2003 and he was relieved on 26.08.2003 by directing him to join at his transferred post, which he did not join and the cascading effect of the same was that the petitioner was put under suspicion vide order dated 29.10.2003, passed by the University pending departmental enquiry. The petitioner was served the Memo of Charges by the disciplinary authority on 6.12.2003. Thereafter vide letter no. 2406 dated 26.06.2004, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service, against which, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and vide order dated 10.06.2005, the order of dismissal was set aside. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Committee on 29.7.2005 and since the petitioner made objections with respect to constitution of the Enquiry Committee, another Enquiry Committee was reconstituted by the University vide order dated 21.07.2006. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 10.08.2006 before the Vice Chancellor, upon which, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The Vice Chancellor on consideration of the charges and the findings of the enquiry report imposed an order of dismissal against the petitioner on 15.05.2008. The petitioner against the order dated 15.05.2008 preferred an appeal before the Chancellor, which was dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2009 and a review application, which followed, also met the same fate on 20.3.2010. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of dismissal and his appeal and review having also faltered preferred a writ application before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1558 of 2010. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 4.11.2010 allowed the writ application primarily on account of the fact that none of the grounds, on which the dismissal order was passed, had ever been communicated to the petitioner, which was a precondition in terms of Sub-Section (3) and (4) of clause 13.9 of the Birsa Agricultural University Statute. Consequently, the orders of dismissal, the order in appeal and the order in review were set aside. However, a liberty was given to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the matter relating to imposition of penalty in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 4.11.2010, passed in W.P. (S) No. 1558 of 2010, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 4883 dated 6.12.2010, to which a reply was submitted, in which certain documents were sought for including the day to day proceedings of the enquiry as according to the petitioner the same was not conducted in accordance with law. Thereafter a final order was passed on 3.1.2011 by the Vice Chancellor removing the petitioner from service of the University with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred before the Chancellor of the University, which, however, was also rejected and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.2.2011.

5. The petitioner had challenged the order of removal and the consequent dismissal of his appeal in W.P. (S) No. 3897 of 2011 with an additional prayer of consequential benefits including salary for the period 15.05.2008 till 1.1.2011. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ application vide order dated 16.9.2014 and the relevant is quoted herein-under:

“19. The record thus, clearly shows that the Enquiry Committee had not offered proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, as even the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Committee,