Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Dibrugarh University And 3 Ors on 7 April, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010237902024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6103/2024
DHRUBAJIT CHOUDHURY
S/O- ABHAY CHOUDHURY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
MATHEMATICS, DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-
786004.
VERSUS
THE DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY AND 3 ORS
DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786004 AND IS
REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR.
2:THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY
DIBRUGARH
PIN- 786004 AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
3:THE REGISTRAR
DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY
DIST.DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN- 786004.
4:THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE
DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN- 786004 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D DEKA, MR N J KUMAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, D U,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
07.04.2025
1. Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Dibrugarh University.
2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the disciplinary proceeding that has been initiated against him, on the ground that the same has been made on the basis of a mere suspicion and that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner.
3. Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been charged under Article 30 & 31 of the Dibrugarh University Teacher's Service Conditions Ordinance, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"). He submits that though Article 30 speaks of 'misconduct', Article 31, though prescribing the standards to be maintained by a Teacher, it does not provide that the charges framed against the petitioner amounts to 'misconduct'.
4. On the other hand, Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Dibrugarh University submits that the Registrar of the University was sent a link of an adult website by an employee of the University, wherein certain videos were available. In the said videos the petitioner was seen engaging in pornographic acts with some unknown female. The respondent no.3 thereafter issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 26.06.2020 to the petitioner with above allegation.
Page No.# 3/5
5. Mr. R. Mazumdar submits that it was later found that there were 7 videos, in which the petitioner was seen to be engaged in pornographic acts with unknown females. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 filed an FIR before the Dibrugarh Sadar Police Station, which was registered as Dibrugarh P.S. Case No.1044/2020 under Section 294/500/506 IPC read with Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act. The petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2020. The police authorities have also filed a Charge-sheet on 31.12.2021 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Dibrugarh under Section 294/500/506 IPC. The petitioner was however discharged by the Court of the CJM, Dibrugarh and there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner at present. However, a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. He submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner has also participated in the disciplinary proceeding and had asked for a lawyer as a defence assistance. The same was allowed by the Inquiry Officer and as such, as on date there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner, due to the ongoing disciplinary proceeding.
6. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datta Sharma & Another, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179, it has been held that when a show cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision, calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the Government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage, unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing Show-Cause Notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Page No.# 4/5 Government servant and once cause is shown, it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that would be premature.
7. In the case of Prabin Kumar Baruah, S/o. Late Ratnadhar Baruah Retired from service as Internal Auditor vs. Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. & Others, reported in 2017 (1) GLT 297, this Court has held at paragraph-9, as follows :
"9. The contours of the power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is too well settled. The general proposition is that where in a case the authority has reached a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it, then interference by the Court can be made, not as an appellate authority but as a judicial authority. In so far as interference into the truth or correctness of charges are concerned, the same is answered in the case of Union of India & Others vs Upendra Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357, wherein the law laid down is that interference by the Court can be made only if on the charges framed read with the imputations or particulars of the charges, no misconduct or other irregularity so alleged can be said to have been made out or that the charges so framed are contrary to any law. From a close perusal of the Articles of Charges as per the Statement of Allegations (Annexure-11 and 14 to the writ petition), it cannot be concluded that the allegations of misconduct and/or breach of Rules of the Bank and/or negligence and inefficiency, touching upon pecuniary loss to the Bank, has not been made out. The said allegations evidently requires to be enquired into to ascertain whether the same can well stand established or stand dropped. In any event, the departmental proceedings must reach its logical conclusion."
8. On considering the charges framed against the petitioner, it cannot be said at this stage that the charges framed against the petitioner does not amount to misconduct and that the petitioner was not involved in the said misconduct. In Page No.# 5/5 any event no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner at this stage of the disciplinary proceeding that has been initiated against the petitioner.
9. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court as referred to in the cases above, this Court does not find any ground to exercise it's discretion in the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant