Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7243
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, ANJAN MONI KALITA, JJ
THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND 4 ORS, GAUHATI UNIVERSITY – Appellant
Versus
RUDRA CHANDRA DAS – Respondent
WA/255/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. P J PHUKAN, SC, G U
For the Respondents:
Termination of service under Article 311(2) necessitates prior inquiry; lack of compliance renders termination unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Termination of service - Writ petition granted by learned Single Judge due to non-compliance with mandatory procedure prior to termination. No satisfaction recorded by authorities justifying invocation of emergency provisions under Article 311(2) - Requirement for prior inquiry as per Rule 9 violated - Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld. (Paras 3, 5, 13)
(B) Constitution - Discretion to entertain writ petitions - High Court can exercise discretion to admit petitions even with alternative remedies available, especially in cases of constitutional violations. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner’s service was terminated without a departmental inquiry as mandated, which was challenged in the higher court leading to a ruling against the procedure applied.
Findings of Court:
The authorities failed to prove that it was impracticable to hold an inquiry, resulting in an unlawful termination.
Issues: Main issues included whether termination violated Article 311(2) and required procedural adherence.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-recording of required satisfaction by authorities invalidated dismissal under Article 311(2).
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination under article 311(2) requires inquiry. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural violations invalidate termination decisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 14) |
| 3. authorities must justify non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. judgments require written reasoning for disciplinary actions. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. writ appeal dismissed due to lack of grounds for interference. (Para 15) |
ORDER
Date : 13-08-2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellants, who submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6962/2021, whereby the writ petitioner’s prayer for setting aside the order terminating his service was allowed, should be set aside. 2. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the 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, should be set aside, inasmuch as, no disciplinary enquiry had been held prior to terminating the petitioner’s service. Further, the petitioner’s termination from service had been done under Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, without there being any satisfaction being drawn by the authorities, to the effect that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned Single Judge, on considering the submissions of the parties and the pleadings, had held that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel & Ors., reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398, the condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was clearly absent, as there was no reason or satisfaction recorded, as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the writ petitioner under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned Single Judge also observed that neither was the said Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) referred to in any of the orders passed by the Gauhati University authority, nor in any of the notes put up in the matter against the petitioner.
5. The learned Single Judge also held that Rule 9(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 prescribed that no order could be imposed on a delinquent Officer, in respect of any of the penalties specified in Rule 7, except after an enquiry was held, in the manner provided in the said Rules. The provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 thus required the holding a departmental proceeding against the delinquent officer, prior to imposing any penalty under Rule 7 of the said Rules. However, without following the procedure under Rule 9, which was mandatory in nature, the respondent authorities had invoked the power under Rule 7, vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2020, terminating the services of the writ petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants, i.e. Gauhati University, submits that three notices along with one newspaper publication had been served upon the writ petitioner, informing him to report back for duty, failing which, the same would invite disciplinary action against him for termination from service. Despite the above, the writ petitioner continued to remain absent from his duties. Further, the writ petitioner did not submit any appeal/review application against the impugned termination order under the provisions of the Gauhati University Employees Service Conditions, Conduct and Appeal Rules, 1970, prior to approaching this Court. He submits that when there is an alternative efficacious remedy avail
