Gauhati High Court
Smti. Deepali Phukan vs Dibrugarh University & 4 Ors on 19 June, 2015
WP(C) 3227/2015
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
19.06.2015
1. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner,
assisted by Mr. M. Nath, Advocate. Also heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior
counsel representing Dibrugarh University assisted by Mr. A. Das, Advocate.
2. At the outset it may be stated that Dibrugarh University have filed its
affidavit-in-opposition and have also produced the relevant records, which have
been perused by this Court.
3. This is the second time that the petitioner is before this Court challenging
the action of the respondent authority in placing her under suspension pending
disciplinary proceeding. On an earlier occasion WP(C) 5617/2014 was instituted challenging the Office Order dated 24.09.2014 issued under the hand of the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh. The said order of suspension was interfered with and a direction was made for reinstating the petitioner in service. The said direction was made in view of the fact that the order of suspension had been passed in violation of Clause 32(i) of the Dibrugarh University Employees' Service Conditions Ordinance, 2000 (as amended upto May, 2007) read with section 18(p) of the University Act, 1965.
4. For a better appreciation, Clause 32(i) of the Ordinance, 2000 is extracted under:
"32. In case of any disciplinary proceeding, the follow ing procedure is duly follow ed:
(i) The Vice-Chancellor m ay suspend an officer after being satisfied that there is a prim a-facie case against him / her and there is sufficient ground requiring such suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. The Vice-Chancellor shall report such suspension to the Executive Council in the nex t sitting."
5. Clause 32(i) vests power only upon the Vice Chancellor to place an Officer under suspension after being satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the Officer and there is sufficient ground requiring suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Upon such satisfaction being made, the Vice Chancellor is required to report to the Executive Council in the next sitting.
6. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the Office Order dated 20.05.2015 issued under the hand of the Registrar, Dibrugarh University Dibrugarh whereby the petitioner has once again been placed under suspension with immediate effect in pursuance of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor with report to the Executive Council, Dibrugarh University for its ratification. The said Office Order dated 20.05.2015, at a cursory glance, appears to have been passed according to the procedure laid down in Clause 32 (i) of the Ordinance, 2000.
7. The records so made available by Mr. A. Das, assisting learned senior counsel, shows that there is an order passed by the Vice Chancellor to the effect that a fresh order suspending the petitioner be issued in view of an endorsement marked as "A" to the Note contained at page 2 of the Office Notes. The portion marked as "A" refers to suggestion obtained from its counsel that there is no impediment for passing another fresh suspension order in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceeding is still under way and has substantially been completed. It is on account of the fact that enquiry is to proceed in a free and fair manner, an opinion was given that the administrative authority has got the power to place the petitioner under suspension. This Note assumes great relevance because it was primarily on the Note that the Vice Chancellor had passed the order saying that a fresh order of suspension be issued.
8. As noticed above, the power of the Vice Chancellor to place an Officer under suspension has to be solely passed upon his own satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the Officer and there is sufficient ground requiring such suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Having regard to the Note and the order of the Vice Chancellor together with the provisions under Clause 32 of the Ordinance, 2000, the statutory requirement had apparently stood ignored. The order of the Vice Chancellor do not disclose any satisfaction on his part of a prima facie case against petitioner and further that there are sufficient grounds requiring such suspension.
9. It is no more res integra that where there is a power to do a certain thing in a certain way, it has to be done in that way or not at all. All other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It leaves no manner of doubt that the procedure adopted for placing the petitioner under suspension is de hors the provisions under Clause 32(i) of the Ordinance, 2000, in that , no satisfaction has been disclosed in the order of the Vice Chancellor requiring the petitioner to be placed under suspension. It was solely on account of the opinion given by the Counsel.
10. In view of the above and having regard to the fact that the respondent authority have already filed its affidavit and records having been produced and perused and also on account of the clear prescription of law under Clause 32 (i), there can be no other opinion but to hold that the action of the respondent authority is bad in law.
11. Accordingly, the order placing the petitioner under suspension dated 20.05.2015 issued under the hand of the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh is set aside and quashed. The respondent authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner within 1 week from today.
12. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed at the motion stage after hearing the parties concerned. No costs.
13. Records produced before this Court is returned to the counsel representing the Respondent University.
sds JUDGE