AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 31-08-2026 Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Siddhartha Parsad, learned Advocate for the BRABU. The State is represented through Mr. Krityanand Jha, learned Advocate.
An interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 02 of 2026 has come up for consideration on a motion made by learned Advocate for the University stating therein that by making an incorrect submission, the petitioner has obtained an order of this Court dated 10.11.2025; whereby, noticing the submission advanced by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the memo of charge issued without the list of documentary evidence or the witnesses, accordingly this Court directed that the departmental proceeding to keep in abeyance, till the next date of hearing.
It is the specific contention of the learned Advocate for the University that the order contained in Memo No. 161/VC dated 22.07.2025, in sum and substance, is not the memo of charge for initiation of a departmental proceeding rather, an imputation levelled against the petitioner of his alleged official misconduct and only to carry out a fair enquiry into all aspect of the matter, a high level enquiry committee has been constituted to submit its enquiry report.
Mr. Siddhartha Parsad, learned Advocate for the University adverting to the statements in the interlocutory application has categorically submitted that, till date, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and, as such, any prayer for quashing of the order dated 22.07.2025, whereby only an enquiry report has been called for is wholly misconceived and not tenable, in the eye of law.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner, in response, contended that now the committee has submitted its report on 20.09.2025 and unanimously recommended that the petitioner has committed gross misconduct and, as such, he needs to be proceeded departmentally for major punishment of dismissal /removal/reduction in rank etc. in terms of clause 15 of the Statutes Relating to the General Conditions of Service of Employees of the Patna, Bihar, Ranchi, Bhagalpur, Magadh, L.N. Mithila and K.S.D. Sanskrit Universities as assented to by the Hon’ble Chancellor Universities of Bihar as contained in Letter No. BSU-36-80-5270 G.S. (I) dated 18.11.1990.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Bhushan submitted that the aforesaid report of the committee has also been put to question by filing interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2026. A response has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the I.A. No. 02 of 2026, which is taken on record.
Considering the submission advanced on behalf of the rival parties and the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that, the apprehension of the petitioner to the effect that a departmental proceeding having been initiated on an incorrect and defective memo of charge, prima facie, does not stand substantiated. Moreover, it is specific contention of the learned Advocate for the University, as also back up by the enquiry report, that presently, a unanimous decision has been taken by the high level committee, with the recommendation for initiation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
It is suffice to observe that the law does not permit quashing of the charge-sheet in routine manner or the notices for which an incumbent has been called upon to appear and file an explanation. In case, the delinquent has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet, he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority, thereon. Neither the disciplinary proceeding nor the charge-sheet be quashed, at any initial stage as it would be a pre-mature stage to deal with the issue.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner, at this juncture submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner is limited to the Letter No. BSU(Examination Controller)-35/2025-1034 GS (I) dated 18.06.2025 and Memo No. B/1435 dated 19.06.2025 issued under the signature of respondent nos. 3 and respondent no. 5 respectively, by which in place of the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as Examination Controller of University in question and further relieved the petitioner from the post of Examination Controller. It is specifically contended by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the entire action of the respondent in removing the petitioner from the post of Examination Controller of the University is in complete disregard to the Letter contained in Memo No. BSU (VC)-45/2019-844/GS(I) dated 27.07.2020, issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Governor Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Patna whereby the appointment made with the approval of the Hon’ble chancellor can only be terminated after issuance of show cause by giving opportunity of submitting reply. Before removing the petitioner from the post of Examination Controller, it is the contention of the petitioner that no proper notice or opportunity of hearing has been accorded .
The aforesaid submission, however, refuted by learned Advocate for the University, and submission has been made that the impugned action has been taken after issuance of proper notice and upon receipt of the reply of the petitioner admitting professional negligence and sheer mistake.
However, on a query made by this Court, the learned Advocate for the University shown his inability to satisfy the Court as to whether any specific show cause with respect to the removal of the petitioner, upon the alleged charges, from the post of Examination Controller has been served or not.
Having considered the submissions and the materials available on record, this Court does not find any merit in the present application, require interference in the orders impugned herein. However, to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit and proper to extend liberty to the petitioner to file proper representation agitating his grievance before the Hon’ble Chancellor of the University’s, preferably within a period of one week.
On receipt of such application, it is expected that the office of the Hon’ble Chancellor shall extend an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders and pass a final order, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till such order is passed, this Court further expects that the concerned authority shall not proceed any further in the enquiry/departmental proceeding.
The writ petition stands disposed.