High Court · 2012

vice. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel referring to the provisions of the Assam A ided Educational Institutions (Aided College) (Conduct & Disciplines of the Empl oyees) Rules, 1960 submits that the petitioner, who has been appointed as Lectur er against the sanctioned post in a deficit college can be removed from service after holding the disciplinary proceeding and not on the basis of the show cause notice issued and the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. Referring to the resolution No.1 dat ed 18th June, 1998, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that it is evident therefrom that the petitioner has been removed from service having no t satisfied with the explanation furnished to the show cause notice issued and o n the basis of some statement made by another employee of the college, that too, recorded in the absence of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further s ubmits that the Director of Higher Education ought not to have accorded the appr oval of the resolution adopted by the Special Body of the college, as, such reso lution was adopted without holding any disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Choudhury also submits that in view of the interim order dated 22nd Septembe r, 2006 passed by this Court in the present writ proceeding, he is still continu ing as the lecturer of the said college. Mr. Chistie, learned standing counsel, Education Department submits that the Spe cial body of the college having not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner against the allegations made in notice dated 12th May, 1998, adop ted the resolution for removal of the petitioner from service, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations. It has also been submitted that it is appare nt from the said resolution adopted that a Grade-IV employee of the college has ’admitted’ the involvement of the petitioner into the allegation made by the Spe cial Body. The claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Lecturer of the aforesaid c ollege against the sanctioned post has not been denied by any of the respondents by filing any affidavit, though the writ petition is pending for last about 6(s ix) years. It is also apparent from the various documents annexed to the writ p etition that he was appointed against the regular sanctioned post. While the pe titioner was serving as Lecturer in the college, the Special Body had issued a s how cause notice dated 12th May, 1998 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service of the college. The petitioner on rec eipt of the said notice, submitted his detailed reply on 17th May, 1998 denying the charges levelled against him in the aforesaid show cause notice. The Specia l Body having not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner adopted the a foresaid resolution dated 18th June, 1998 resolving to remove the petitioner fro m service. It is not in dispute that before adoption of such resolution for removal of the petitioner from service, no disciplinary proceeding has been conducted, despite denial of the allegation by the petitioner as made by the college authority in t he notice dated 12th May, 1998. One of the ground on which the petitioner has b een removed from service, as it appears from the aforesaid resolution adopted by the Special Body, is that a Grade-IV employee has (cid:28)admitted’’ involvement of th e petitioner into the allegation made in the show cause notice dated 12th May, 1 998. Nothing could be placed before this Court by any of the respondents to de monstrate that such statement of such Grade-IV employee was recorded in presence of the petitioner. Nothing also could be placed before the Court to show that a disciplinary proceeding was conducted by the college authority before deciding to remove him from service. Rule 4 of the aforesaid 1960 Rules, applicability of which has not been denied by the learned standing counsel, Education Departme nt to the case in hand, provides that the disciplinary authority may for good an d sufficient reasons impose, amongst other the penalty of removal from service. Naturally when the delinquent denies the allegation made by the authority in th e show cause notice, a disciplinary proceeding has to be conducted to prove the allegation against the delinquent and also affording the opportunity to the deli nquent to cross-examine the witnesses to be examined in such proceeding. The sa me, however, has not been done before adoption of the resolution of removal from service by the Special Body in its proceeding dated 18th June, 1998. The said a spect of the matter has not been considered by the Director of Higher Education while approving the aforesaid resolution vide order dated 3Rd June, 2006. In view of the above, the resolution dated 18th June, 1998 adopted by the Specia l body of the college and the subsequent approval accorded by the Director of Hi gher Education vide order dated 3rd June, 2006 are set aside. Since the petitio ner is continuing, he shall continue to discharge his duties, until of course di sciplinary action is taken against him. It is open to the authority to conduct a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the allegation already levelled, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.