Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 185 (GAU)

Anjan Kr. Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam

2007-03-05

AMITAVA ROY

body2007
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. In challenge is the resolution dated 5.3.2007 of the Governing Body of the Hojai College, Hojai, Nagaon ('the College'), requesting the Director of Higher Education, Assam to institute an enquiry against the petitioner and further resolving to place him under suspension and in his place allow the Vice Principal of the College to act as the Principal thereof. The validity of the order dated 8.10.2007 of the aforementioned State authority approving the resolution to place the petitioner under suspension and the order dated 9.10.2007 of the Governing Body of the College effectuating the same, has also been assailed. The pleadings being Complete, the petition was heard finally at the admission stage and this order disposes of the same on merits. 2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, senior advocate assisted by Ms. P. Barman, advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam. Also Heard Mr. G. Uzir, Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. The petitioner's pleaded case is that as the Principal of the College, he had been ably and to the satisfaction of all concerned discharging his duties. As some lecturers of the institution bearing malice against him, had published some news items containing adverse allegations against the Principal of the College, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Hojai), sought to initiate an inquiry in connection therewith. The petitioner perceiving that the said authority had no jurisdiction to do so in the manner proposed, approached this Court with W.P.(C) No. 3884/2006, which was disposed of on 14.8.2006, interdicting the process, observing that the departmental authorities, if inclined to hold an inquiry would report the matter to the Director of Higher Education, Assam and if authorized by him would pursue the same. 4. According to the petitioner, while he was on leave between 7.10.2006 to 24.10.2006 for medical treatment at Chennai, a group of faculty members of the College taking advantage of his absence brought allegations against him before the President, Governing Body, whereupon, the latter directed the Vice-Principal of the College to convene an emergent meeting of the Governing Body on 15.10.2006 with the agenda "ultimatum letter issued from HCTA". In the said meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Governing Body of the College along with the nine (9) members thereof, two special invitees namely Prof. P. Bagchi President HCTA (Hojai College Teachers Association) and Prof. In the said meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Governing Body of the College along with the nine (9) members thereof, two special invitees namely Prof. P. Bagchi President HCTA (Hojai College Teachers Association) and Prof. D. Goswami, Secretary, HCTA, were present. Professor D. Goswami, leveled allegations against the petitioner regarding illegal appointments both in the teaching and official staff said to have been made without following the proper procedure. He also cited a number of instances of corruption against Principal/Secretary of the College. In the meeting, the Governing Body took a resolution in absence of the petitioner to constitute two enquiry committees to probe into the charges leveled against him. Whereas, one enquiry committee was to investigate into the aspect of "construction" with professor D. Goswami as one of the members thereof, the other body was required to look into the "poor fund and illegal appointment" to be headed by Professor P. Bagchi. By another resolution taken in the meeting, the Principal was divested of the financial powers, which was vested of the Vice-Principal of the College. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved, on 23.11.2006, submitted a representation before the Director of Higher Education, Assam, against the above resolution, inter alia, questioning the permissibility of the presence of Professor D. Goswami and Professor P. Bagchi, who were not the members of the Governing Body in the meeting. Thereafter on 26.11.2006, the Governing Body in its meeting resolved to appoint Professor A. Rahman, Vice-Principal of the College to be the Secretary. The resolutions, according to the petitioner, taken in the meetings dated 15.10.2006 and 26.11.2006 adversely affecting his status and powers, were taken without affording him any prior opportunity of hearing. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, however, by his order dated 29.11.2006 allowed the Vice-Principal of the College to act as the Secretary of the Governing Body, purportedly in the interest of smooth enquiry against the Principal on the allegation of financial irregularities as referred to in the Governing Body's resolution dated 26.11.2006. The petitioner being afflicted, approached this Court with W.P.(C) No. 6175/2006, which is pending adjudication as on date. It was thereafter that the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 29.1.2007, vide its resolution No. 6(a) and 6(b), requested the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to take immediate disciplinary action against the petitioner. The said meeting discussed about an amount of Rs. It was thereafter that the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 29.1.2007, vide its resolution No. 6(a) and 6(b), requested the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to take immediate disciplinary action against the petitioner. The said meeting discussed about an amount of Rs. 80,055, collected from the students in the session 2005-06 for Inter College Cricket Tournament (GU), alleged to have been misappropriated by the Principal of the College. Eventually, it in its resolution dated 5.3.2007, the Governing Body amongst others resolved to place the petitioner under suspension. Being without any alternative, the petitioner instituted a W.P.(C) No. 1363/2007, impugning the said resolution. As during the pendency thereof, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, by his order dated 8.10.2007, approved the Governing Body's resolution placing the petitioner under suspension for alleged anomalies in financial matters and appointments, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition. 6. The petitioner has amongst others, maintained that the order dated 8.10.2007, has been passed perfunctorily without any application of mind, as the said authority has approved his suspension without according any decision on the request to the abovenamed State authority to initiate a Government enquiry against him. Consequently the order dated 9.10.2007, of the Secretary, Governing Body of the College placing the petitioner under suspension has been challenged as unsustainable in law. While categorically denying the allegation of financial irregularities or illegal appointments made by him as charged, the petitioner has averred that during the period 15.10.2006 to 29.1.2007, several enquiry committees were set up, out of which one was constituted by the Director of Higher Education by his order dated 3.4.2007. The enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam, who submitted a report on 30.7.2007, disclosing that the appointments of Shri Farriuddin Choudhury and Shri Manjit Kr. Roy were not as per procedure. The petitioner has asserted that these appointments in fact had been made vide resolution dated 19.1.2005 of the Governing Body of the College and had been approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam by his order dated 1.2.2006. The Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle also conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 20.7.2007 observing that the petitioner was involved in large scale corruptions and misappropriation of College development funds. The Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle also conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 20.7.2007 observing that the petitioner was involved in large scale corruptions and misappropriation of College development funds. Though, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department vide letter No. AHE.221/2006/173, dated 13.8.2007, had required the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to take immediate action on the enquiry reports submitted, the latter in total disregard thereof and without any application of mind plainly approved the resolution of the Governing Body of the College placing him under suspension. The petitioner has accosted the impugned action to be wanting in bona fide as well, pleading it to be the handiwork of most of the faculty members of the College, whose engagement with a private institution for gain had been disapproved by him as the Principal of the College. The petitioner in particular has submitted a complaint before the Director of Higher Education, Assam, revealing that Professor D. Goswami and one Shri L. Patgiri of the College are engaged in a private profit earning institution on which the latter had ordered an inquiry. This according to the petitioner, had made him the eyesore of the faculty members similarly interested so much so that they contrived the imputations of financial irregularities and illegal appointments against him and occasioned a decision detrimental to him. 7. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, respondent No. 2, in his affidavit averred that during the petitioner's tenure several allegations were leveled against him relating to financial irregularities and appointment of lecturers in the College. According to the answering respondent in order to obviate all possibilities of manipulation of important records and documents of the College, the Governing Body thereof, decided to suspend the petitioner vide its resolution dated 5.3.2007, which was approved by the impugned order dated 8.10.2007 and accordingly, the order dated 9.10.2007 by the College authority was passed placing the petitioner under suspension. 8. The affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, affirmed by the Principal In-charge of the College, discloses that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, Nagaon, as ordered by the Director of Higher Education, Assam on completion of the enquiry on the allegation of corruption made against the Principal of the College submitted his report on 24.7.2007. 8. The affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, affirmed by the Principal In-charge of the College, discloses that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, Nagaon, as ordered by the Director of Higher Education, Assam on completion of the enquiry on the allegation of corruption made against the Principal of the College submitted his report on 24.7.2007. As the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent during the relevant period, the President of the Governing Body of the College instructed the Principal in-charge thereof to convene an emergent meeting on 15.10.2006 for discussing the agenda in terms of the ultimatum/memorandum submitted by the HCTA. Following deliberations therein, two enquiry committees were constituted for probing into the issues relating to construction of the College building, poor funds of the institution and illegal appointments. It having been felt necessary, by a resolution taken in the said meeting, the financial power of the petitioner was withdrawn from him and vested with the Vice-Principal of the College. Referring to the instances of Smt. Suchismita Devnath, Sri Manjit Kumar Roy, Md. Fari Uddin Choudhury, etc., the answering respondents have insisted that their appointments were illegal being without following the due process of law and that the petitioner as the Principal of the College had endeavoured to legalise the same by withholding correct facts from the Governing Body. According to them, Sri D. Goswami and Sri P. Bagchi, the Secretary and President of the HCTA were present in the meeting of the Governing Body only to elaborate on the ultimatum/memorandum and did not act as the regular members of the Governing Body. The answering respondents have maintained that the Director of Secondary Education, Assam having approved the institution of an enquiry against the petitioner, instructed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Sankardev Nagar, Hojai to conduct the same and that therefore, the plea of non-consideration by him of the resolution of the Governing Body of the College to the said effect, is wholly untenable. They have insisted that the decision of the Governing Body to place the petitioner under suspension and the approval thereof by the Director of Higher Education, Assam being based on relevant facts and considerations are valid and in the interest of the institution. 9. They have insisted that the decision of the Governing Body to place the petitioner under suspension and the approval thereof by the Director of Higher Education, Assam being based on relevant facts and considerations are valid and in the interest of the institution. 9. In his affidavit-in-reply the petitioner referring to Rule 3(a) of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 ('the Act'), has asserted that the Governing Body of a provincialised College by itself independently is not authorized to take any action against any member of its staff on issues bearing on conduct and discipline and that as the Director of Higher Education, Assam had omitted to form an independent view of his own in this regard on a consideration of the enquiry reports about the justifiability of the petitioner's suspension, the impugned orders dated 8.10.2007 and 9.10.2007 are non est in law. 10. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with their additional affidavit have placed on record the extracts of the documents set out therein. 11. Mr. Goswami, has argued that the impugned order of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, approving the resolution of the Governing Body, of the College placing the petitioner under suspension besides being plainly unsustainable in the attendant facts and circumstances, also suffers from total non-application of mind and is, thus, liable to be interfered with. The allegation against the petitioner pertaining to the illegal appointments in the College having been dropped as is evident from the minutes of the proceeding of the Governing Body of its meeting held on 26.11.2006, the impugned resolution dated 05.03.2007 recommending the petitioner's suspension also on the said consideration is per se perverse and therefore, the approval thereof by the aforementioned State authority is patently illegal and, thus, non est in law, he urged. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the process culminating in the petitioner's suspension has its roots in an ultimatum submitted by the HCTA of which Professor P. Bagchi and Professor D. Goswami, were the President and Secretary respectively against whom the petitioner had lodged complaint regarding their association with a private institution for gain at the cost of their services to the College. Mr. Mr. Gosowami therefore sought to impress upon this Court that these teachers along with others similarly benefited by their alliance with the said private institution designed this move by leveling false allegations against the petitioner and dominated the Governing Body proceedings to resolve against him to his detriment and prejudice. As the impugned resolution dated 5.3.2007 is a fall out of such an acrimony against the petitioner as is evident from the minutes of the meetings of the Governing Body held on 15.10.2006, 20.11.2006, 29.1.2007 and 5.3.2007, the impugned resolution/decision is vitiated by mala fide as well and is thus liable to be adjudged null and void. Mr. Goswami, has emphasized that a bare perusal of the minutes of the aforementioned meetings of the Governing Body would unambiguously demonstrate the absence of any adverse material against the petitioner except the charge of misappropriation leveled by Professor D. Goswami and, therefore, the impugned resolution dated 5.3.2007 recommending his suspension and the approval thereof by the Director of Higher Education, Assam is manifestly illegal and arbitrary. Drawing the attention of this Court to the sworn pleaded version of the petitioner that no appointment had ever been made by him without the approval of the Governing Body and that the funds of the College were duly audited every year by an Internal Auditor appointed by the Governing Body and submitted with the Director of Higher Education, Assam, Mr. Goswami has maintained that in absence of any rebuttal of this plea, the imputations of illegal appointments and misappropriation of funds brought against him (petitioner), are absurd and preposterous. The Learned Senior Counsel thus contended that the impugned order of petitioner's suspension passed on 9.10.2007 founded on the approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam is likewise indefensible. 12. In reply, Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Council, Education Department has defended the Director s order of approval of the petitioner's suspension contending that the contemporaneous materials on record justified the same. 13. Mr. Uzir, also maintained that the impugned action was validly taken in the interest of the institution and as the recorded inputs warranted the same, no interference therewith is called for. The Learned Counsel complained that in spite of the petitioner's suspension, he had not fully parted with the relevant records. 13. Mr. Uzir, also maintained that the impugned action was validly taken in the interest of the institution and as the recorded inputs warranted the same, no interference therewith is called for. The Learned Counsel complained that in spite of the petitioner's suspension, he had not fully parted with the relevant records. He, however, relied on the documents appended to the writ petition as well as the additional affidavit of the Governing Body of the College to support the impugned decision. 14. I have closely scrutinized the pleadings of the parties as well as the arguments advanced. The petitioner had joined the College as the Principal thereof on 7.3.2001 and his appointment was formally approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam by his order dated 25.5.2005. The petitioner thus had been in the aforesaid capacity as in-charge of the affairs of the institution since the year 2001. 15. The genesis of the action impugned is traceable to the meeting of the Governing Body of the College held on 15.10.2006 with the agenda "ultimatum/memorandum" letter issued from HCTA. The meeting was convened to discuss the issues raised in the memorandum submitted by the Hojai College Teachers' Association on 25.9.2006 titled "Ultimatum" dated 26.9.2006 and submitted with the Principal cum Secretary of the College on the same very date. This memorandum was signed by Sri P. Bagchi and Sri D. Goswami, President and Secretary of HCTA respectively. The recorded decision of the meeting of the said Association held on 25.9.2006 demanded action, inter alia, for termination of all appointments made without following the proper procedure during the tenure of the petitioner as the Principal of the institution, assurance for initiation of construction works in the College only after formal approval of the properly constituted Construction Committee, necessary steps to prevent tampering of Governing Body meeting resolutions by the Principal and Secretary of the College, stoppage of frequent transfer of funds from one head to another without prior approval of the Governing Body, etc. The HTCA mentioned the dead line of 10.10.2006 failing which it threatened to resort to agitation. 16. The HTCA mentioned the dead line of 10.10.2006 failing which it threatened to resort to agitation. 16. A bare reading of the minutes of the meeting held on 15.10.2006 reveals that the allegations of illegal appointments both in the teaching and office staff of the College and as well as the financial irregularities pertaining to the construction works and other heads were highlighted by Professor D. Goswami, Secretary, HCTA with two other Members of the Governing College supporting him. By Resolution No. 1, the Governing body constituted two enquiry committees to probe into the anomalies relating to the construction works, poor college funds and illegal appointments. By Resolution No. 2, the Governing Body divested the Principal of his financial power except to the extent of release of pay and salary and the Principal was directed to produce all relevant documents before the Enquiry committees. 17. The enquiry committee of construction works submitted its report on 31.10.2006 with the President of the Governing Body of the College recording, inter alia, that the construction works had been undertaken by the petitioner as the Principal of the College without obtaining the mandatory prior approval of the Governing Body and that though the Construction committee had been constituted, no meeting thereof had been convened to deliberate on the construction plans or to accord approval to the proposed works, no contract had been awarded to any approved contractor and that the Principal chose to undertake the same by flouting all official norms including purchase of construction materials without any reference to the existing market rates, etc. Referring to various instances of release of some of such different amounts in this regard as well otherwise, the charge of financial irregularities was sought to be introduced. The Committee even concluded that the petitioner had been expending from the College funds to meet his lawyer's fees in WP (C) No. 6450/2001 before this Court in which the institution was not a party. The following recommendations were made: 1. The college authority must take immediate and concrete steps to check the large scale financial irregularities being committed by the Secretary and thus prevent further harm to this institution. 2. The following recommendations were made: 1. The college authority must take immediate and concrete steps to check the large scale financial irregularities being committed by the Secretary and thus prevent further harm to this institution. 2. In the tight of the findings of the Committee is of the strong opinion that a premier public institution of the sub division consisting of three academic faculties is not safe in the hand of a person of such dubious financial transactions. 3. The college authority should take immediate steps to prevent the violation of the principle of administrative fair-play. 18. In the meantime, the internal audit of the accounts of the College for the year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 had been conducted and a report was submitted on the completion of the process on 25.1.2005 (Annexure-C to the additional affidavit of the Governing Body), indicating financial irregularities on a number of counts. Pursuant to the order of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Assam, Guwahati conducted an enquiry on 18.9.2006 on the alleged anomalies in the appointments of Md. Fariduddin Choudhury and Sri Manjit Kumar Roy, lecturers in Political Science and Bengali respectively of the College. In the report submitted on 18.10.2006, it was, inter alia, indicated that the said posts had not been advertised and that the adjustment of these two lecturers, who were initially appointed on contractual basis in the year 2003 was not effected through a transparent process. A recommendation was made to serve a notice on the Secretary of the Governing Body for tampering with the resolution dated 19.1.2005 of the Governing Body showing the adjustment of these lecturers. 19. Acting on this report, the Director of Higher Education, Assam by his letter dated 23.11.2006 instructed the President of the Governing Body of the College to issue notice on the Principal and Secretary of the College and draw up a proceeding in connection therewith. The Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 26.11.2006 primarily noticing the above development dropped the issue of illegal appointments from the purview of the Inquiries by the Committees constituted by it. The Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 26.11.2006 primarily noticing the above development dropped the issue of illegal appointments from the purview of the Inquiries by the Committees constituted by it. It, however, took notice of the memorandum submitted by Hojai College Students Union as well as a section of the teachers of the College alleging that Professor D. Goswami and Professor L. Patgiri were engaged in private profit earning institution trifling the interest of the College. The Governing Body after a discussion on the said Memorandum set up an Enquiry committee to investigate into the matter and submit a report. It also took into account the Enquiry Reports submitted by the two Committees constituted on 15.10.2006 and resolved to furnish the same to the Principal of the College eliciting his opinion thereon. It also resolved to appoint the Vice-Principal of the College to be the Secretary and decided to permit him to operate the College funds jointly with the Professor K. Sarma appointed as the Treasurer. It resolved to request the Director of Higher Education, Assam to accord necessary approval to the resolution. The said authority by his letter dated 29.11.2006 approved the resolution for a period of four months or till the completion of the enquiry whichever was earlier. The minutes of the Governing Body meeting, in the opinion of this Court display an otherwise balanced and equilibrated approach to the issues raised before it. Not only it was not unmindful or quiescent to the memoranda divulging the association or Professor D. Goswami and Professor L. Patgiri, lecturers of the College with a private institution for personal gain ignoring their commitments to the College, it in the interest of fairness and transparency provided that the copies of the Enquiry Reports involving the petitioner be served on him so as to enable him to reply thereto. The minutes of the meeting held on 29.01.2007 of the Governing Body reveals that the irregularities in the matter of appointments, financial dealings and administrative affairs involving the petitioner were noticed and it was resolved to request the Director of Higher Education, Assam to take immediate disciplinary action against the petitioner or adopt any other suitable measure as deemed fit and proper. The documents produced along with the additional affidavit of the Governing Body of the College disclose that on the instruction of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, enquiries were separately conducted by the Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle and the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam into the allegations of mishandling of college funds, corruption with regard thereto as well as illegal appointments involving the petitioner. Accordingly the reports dated 20.7.2007 and 30.7.2007 respectively, were submitted by the abovementioned State authorities recording the conclusions adverse to him on these issues. The concluding portions of the reports for ready reference are extracted hereinbelow: REPORT DATED 20.07.2007 Conclusion: It is, therefore, concluded that Mr. Anjan Kr. Bhattacharjee, Principal, Hojai College is proved to be involved in larger scale corruption and misappropriation of college development fund, unilateral act in spending Government fund (like making work order, receiving material, making payment under his own hand writing), submitting doubtful UTC against expenditure, illegal and controversial appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff of Hojai College, concealing and tampering the material fact and GB resolution. With these, this is forwarded to your goodself for favour of perusal and necessary action, REPORT DATED 30.7.2007 Conclusion: It can now be concluded that the entire appointment process in connection with the appointment of Farrid Uddin Choudhury and Shri Manjit Kr. Roy was not done as per rule. 20. With reference to the resolution dated 29.1.2007, the Director of Higher Education, Assam by his letter dated 20.2.2007 required the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College to take necessary action under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 against the petitioner. The Governing Body in its meeting held on 5.3.2007 decided that there ought to be further government enquiries on financial irregularities disclosed in the reports of the Committees and resolved as hereunder: Resolution No. 3 (a) Be it resolved that Director of Higher Education, Assam be requested to institute a Government enquiry against Sri A.K. Bhattacharjee, present Principal, Hojai College on the anomalies in financial matters on the basis of enquiries made by G.B. Hojai College vide Resolution No. 1 of the meeting held on 15.10.2006. (b) Be it unanimously Resolved that pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings against Sri Anjan Kr. Bhattacharjee, Present Principal of Hojai College, he be placed under suspension for anomalies in financial and appointment matters with immediate effect. (b) Be it unanimously Resolved that pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings against Sri Anjan Kr. Bhattacharjee, Present Principal of Hojai College, he be placed under suspension for anomalies in financial and appointment matters with immediate effect. He will got the subsistence allowance as per the rule during his suspension period. Be it further resolved that D.H.E. be requested to accord necessary approval in this regard. (c) Be it unanimously resolved that Sri Kumudoswar Sarma, Present Vice-President of Hojai College, Hojai who is also the senior most lecturer of the College shall act as Principal i/c of the college in the period of suspension of Sri A.K. Bhattacharjee, present Principal of Hojai College. Be it further resolved that D.H.E. be requested to accord necessary approval in this regard. 21. It was thereafter that the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department by his communication No. AHE.221/2006/173 dated 13.08.2007 referring to the reports dated 20.7.2007 and 30.7.2007 of the Circle Officer, Hojai Revenue Circle and the Deputy Director, Higher Education, Assam directed the Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati to initiate urgent action on the basis thereof against the Principal of the College. The above authority was also instructed to take necessary action against Sri Dibakar Goswami and Laksman Patgiri for their engagement with the private institution Jatiya Vidyalaya under the relevant Conduct Rules. This step against them was decided in view of the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam on 30.7.2007 to the effect that they were associated with the private institution Jatiya Vidyalaya and Jatiya Academy which was impermissible except with the previous approval of the government. The Director of Higher Education, Assam by the impugned order dated 8.10.2007 approved the Governing Body's resolution of placing the petitioner under suspension. On receipt of the said decision, the impugned order dated 9.10.2007 was passed placing the petitioner under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceeding against him for the anomalies in the appointments as well as financial matters. The Memorandum of charges dated 13.12.2007 has since been issued to the Principal enumerating several allegations bearing on illegal appointments and financial irregularities requiring him to submit a written explanation thereto. It is submitted at the Bar that as on date, the petitioner has not submitted his reply. 22. The Memorandum of charges dated 13.12.2007 has since been issued to the Principal enumerating several allegations bearing on illegal appointments and financial irregularities requiring him to submit a written explanation thereto. It is submitted at the Bar that as on date, the petitioner has not submitted his reply. 22. An overall view of the sequential developments together with a conjoint reading of the minutes of the meetings of the Governing Body, reports submitted on the imputations against the petitioner and the orders passed by the State authorities from time to time do not in the opinion of this Court, unequivocally render the impugned resolution dated 5.3.2007, the approval thereof and the eventual order of suspension of the petitioner unwarranted, illogical and invalid in law. Even if, the HCTA and Professor D. Goswami and Professor L. Patgiri are construed to be inimically disposed towards the petitioner as asserted, for his disapproval of their engagement with a private institution, the coeval reports from time to time on the indictments of illegal appointments and financial irregularities cannot be over looked. For obvious reasons, this Court refrains from making further comments thereon in face of pending show-cause notice against the petitioner based on the materials collected in the enquiry. 23. In recording this view, this Court is conscious of the action proposed against Professor D. Goswami and Professor L. Patgiri, lecturers of the College as alluded hereinabove. The reports have thrown up materials bearing on the above charges against the petitioner and as the enquiries pertaining thereto were preliminary in nature, the petitioner ought to be afforded an opportunity to contend against the findings contained therein. Vividly, the communication dated 13.12.2007 is to facilitate a reply by the petitioner to the accusations made therein. It is however, apparent that this course of action is pursuant to the instructions of Director of Higher Education, Assam as is amongst others evident from the order dated 8.10.2007 itself. Though the said order in specific terms did not deal with resolution 3(a) dated 5.3.2007, the various orders of the Director of Higher Education, Assam from time to time on the issue signify approval thereof as well. Further, the said course is in compliance of the instructions contained in the letter dated 13.8.2007 of the higher authority of the department. Though the said order in specific terms did not deal with resolution 3(a) dated 5.3.2007, the various orders of the Director of Higher Education, Assam from time to time on the issue signify approval thereof as well. Further, the said course is in compliance of the instructions contained in the letter dated 13.8.2007 of the higher authority of the department. The Director of Higher Education, Assam in his affidavit has clarified that the petitioner's suspension is considered necessary in view of the ongoing institutional enquiry to obviate the possibility of tampering of the relevant official records. 24. On a totality of the considerations as above, I do not feel persuaded to denounce the approval of the petitioner's suspension for the ostensible omission on the part of the Director of Higher Education, Assam to approve the resolution No. 3(a) in categorical terms. As it is, the attendant facts do not present a case, where an unhesitant opinion against the exigency of the petitioner's suspension is plausible. Having regard to the post involved, as well as the inputs presently available against the petitioner, the impugned decision cannot be dubbed as illegal, arbitrary and void. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere therewith. However, the enquiry initiated by the communication dated 13.12.2007 should be completed within a period four (4) months herefrom. Needless to say, that the petitioner would cooperate with the process so as to enable the respondents to comply with the deadline fixed by this Court. 24A. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Petition dismissed.