Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 214 (GAU)

Thingom Mani Singh v. Manipur University

2006-03-03

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2006
Heard Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned standing counsel for the Manipur University, Canchipur. 2. Taking into consideration of the nature of this case, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage. 3. The fact of the petitioner's case is short and simple. According to the petitioner was appointed as Assistant (General) in the Manipur University under office order No.288 dated 15.9.1984 issued by the Registrar, Manipur University w.e.f. the date of joining. In pursuance of the said order dated 15.9.1984 the petitioner joined his service as Assistant (General) in the Manipur University. It is also said that he successfully completed the probation period. After taking into consideration of the service of the petitioner as Assistant (General) his service as Assistant (General) had been confirmed on the recommendation of the Departmental Confirmation Committee vide order No.MU/1-42/01/Admn.1 dated 8.1.1986, copy of which is available at Annexure-A/3 to the present writ petition. In that order dated 8.1.1986 name of the petitioner appear at Sl.No.21. By an order of the Registrar, Manipur University being No.MU/11/220/84/Admn.1/941 dated 15.9.2003 the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, office memorandum dated 8.2.2005 was issued for holding disciplinary inquiry in compliance of provision of Rule 14 of CCS (CCS) Rules, 1965. Article of charge also annexed in the said office memorandum itself. It is also said that for the articles of charge under the said office memorandum dated 8.2.2005 the disciplinary inquiry is about to be started against the petitioner. In such situation, the Registrar, Manipur University issued office order No.792 dated 25th October,2005 for terminating the service of the petitioner under Rule 5 of CCS(Temporary) Service Rules,1965. 4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that since the petitioner had already successfully completed the probation and got his service confirmed he cannot be treated as temporary, and such being the situation provision of CCS(Temporary) Service Rules,1965 is not applicable to the present writ petitioner. 5. Mr.B.P.Sahu learned standing counsel for the respondent also submits that CCS (Temporary) Service Rule is not applicable to a confirmed employee. 6. 5. Mr.B.P.Sahu learned standing counsel for the respondent also submits that CCS (Temporary) Service Rule is not applicable to a confirmed employee. 6. Mr.B.P.Sahu, also fairly concedes that in the peculiar fact and circumstances of the present case provision of CCS (Temporary) Service Rules is misconstrued and he further admits that the provision of CCS (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the present petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration of the submission of the learned counsel of both sides, this Court is of the considered view that an interference to the impugned order No.792 dated October 25,2005 is called for. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order No.792 dated 25.10.05 is hereby quashed and set aside and petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith. However, it is left to the authority of the Manipur University to take necessary action against the petitioner in accordance with appropriate law. 9. It is further made clear that the authority of the Manipur University shall take appropriate decision regarding payment of arrear pay and allowance of the petitioner from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement of the petitioner in service in compliance with the order of this Court. 10. with the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.