Bishnu Prasad Rabha v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and 7 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010089882019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/2758/2019o BISHNUoPRASADoRABHAo PRESENTLYoWORKINGoASoTHEoUPPERoDIVISIONoCLERCK,oKENDRIYAo VIDYALAYAoNEISTo(RRL),oJORHAT,oDIST-oJORHAT,oASSAM,oPIN-o785006,o THEoPETITIONERoISoPRESENTLYoRESIDINGoAToC/OoRUBULoGOGOI,o KALYANPUR,oPULIBOR,oP.O.oRRLoJORHAT,oP.S.oPULIBOR,oDIST-oJORHAT,o ASSAM,oPIN-o785006 VERSUSo KENDRIYAoVIDYALAYAoSANGATHANoANDo7oORS.o THROUGHoTHEoJOINToCOMMISSIONERo(ADMN.),o18oINSTITUTIONALo AREA,oSAHEEDoJEEToSINGHoMARG,oNEWoDELHI-o110016 2:THEoCOMMISSIONER oKENDRIYAoVIDYALAYAoSANGATHANo18oINSTITUTIONALoAREA oSAHEEDoJEEToSINGHoMARG oNEWoDELHI-o110016 3:THEoDY.oCOMMISSIONER oKENDRIYAoVIDYALAYAoSANGATHAN oREGIONALoOFFICE oSILCHAR oCAPTAINoN.M.oGUPTAoSARANI oP.O.oSILCHAR oDIST-oCACHAR oASSAM oPIN-o788001 4:SOMIToSHRIVASTAV oKENDRIYAoVIDYALAYAoSANGATHAN oREGIONALoOFFICE oSILCHAR Page No.# 2/5 CAPTAIN N.M. GUPTA SARANI P.O. SILCHAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 5:AJAY PANT DY. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN REGIONAL OFFICE TINSUKIA CAMPUS OF KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA DULIAJAN P.O. DULIAJAN DIST-DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786602 6:M MANOHARAN PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO 1 TEZPUR P.O. DEKARGAON DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784501 7:SIKHA GOGOI PGT (ENGLISH) KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NEIST (RRL) P.O. RRL JORHAT DIST-JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785006 8:M.H. MAZUMDAR TGT (WORK EXPERIENCE) KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NEIST (RRL) P.O. RRL JORHAT DIST-JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78500 For the petitioner : Mr. B. Chakraborty, Mr. D. Goswami, Advocates For the respondents : Ms. R.S. Chowdhury, Mr. R. Chauhan, Advocates

Page No.# 3/5

– B E F O R E – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM 27-02-2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)

1) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated

05.04.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner with the prayer for setting aside the impugned Memorandum dated 13.01.2015, has been dismissed. 2) In respect of certain charges, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by a committee constituted by the respondents. The enquiry committee had submitted its report to the effect that out of five charges levelled against the petitioner, charge No.5 was proved. After receiving the report of the enquiry committee, the disciplinary authority issued the Memorandum dated

13.01.2015 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was asked to explain as to why the penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon him in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances. The petitioner was further directed to file reply to the Memorandum within a period of 10 days from the date of its receipt with the caution that if the petitioner failed to file his response then it would be presumed that he has nothing to say and appropriate orders would be passed. It is against the said Memorandum dated 13.01.2015, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the CAT, which came to be dismissed vide the Page No.# 4/5 impugned order. 3) During the course of argument, it has transpired that the disciplinary authority has still not imposed any penalty upon the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by the CAT as well as by this Court. 4) Though the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner on various grounds, however, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his prayer regarding the proportionality of punishment. 5) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available, we are of the considered view that till date the disciplinary authority has not imposed any punishment upon the petitioner and in such circumstances, the action of the petitioner of filing Original Application against the Memorandum dated 13.01.2015, which is essentially a show-cause notice, was premature. Learned CAT has altogether ignored this aspect. 6) Since the disciplinary authority has not imposed any punishment upon the petitioner, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his response to the Memorandum dated

13.01.2015 within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. On receiving such response, the disciplinary authority may consider the same and then pass appropriate order without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned CAT in its order dated 05.04.2019. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the disciplinary authority, who had issued the Memorandum dated 13.01.2015, has now retired. 7) In such circumstances, the respondents are at liberty to appoint another disciplinary authority for taking appropriate decision in the matter. 8) With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say Page No.# 5/5 that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, he is free to avail appropriate remedy available under the law.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant