GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 4 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 4:

1. Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2] By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is assailing, inter alia, the departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the Memorandum Of Charges dated 23.10.2024 and the impugned Resolution dated 21.03.2025 of the Executive Council of the respondent University, whereby the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was accepted.

3] The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner, during his service tenure at Bhattadev University (on lien from Gauhati University) as Registrar on probation, was arrested on 06.08.2022 in connection with the alleged acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 50,000/- in front of a pretrapped team of Assam Police in ACB P.S. Case No. 24/2022 u/s 7 (a) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended). The writ petitioner, after being released from Bhattadev University w.e.f. 01.02.2023, joined his parent Gauhati University on 26.07.2024; however, on the very same day, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, departmental proceedings have been initiated by the respondent University against the writ petitioner by issuing Memorandum of Charges dated 23.10.2024. After receipt of the written statement of defence on 04.11.2024, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges leveled against the writ petitioner. During the pendency of the said disciplinary proceeding, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition before this court bearing WP(C) No. 351/2025 seeking the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him before the Inquiry Officer.

4] In the said writ proceedings, this court vide judgment & order dated 27.01.2025 directed that in the event the petitioner has not been able to cross-examine the three witnesses as alleged on 16.01.2025, the Inquiry Officer should consider giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine them in the departmental proceeding. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that despite the aforesaid direction of this court, the writ petitioner was not granted the opportunity to cross-examine the three prosecution witnesses. It is the further specific case of the writ petitioner that the Inquiry Officer completed the proceedings in violation of the rules of natural justice and recommended thereof the dismissal of the writ petitioner, which was mechanically accepted by the disciplinary authority and thereafter issued the second show-cause notice for proposed imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2FQmlrhE7JN0yLV82ZTRDT5QyBScqlU4bjUat83v3cZn&caseno=WP(C)/2693/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010106232025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.