Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 723 (GAU)

P. H. Naik v. Nagaland University

2014-07-18

PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2014
Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. In this proceeding, the Resolution No. EC: 3:1 in 31st meeting minutes dated 01.06.2012 adopted by the Executive Council, Nagaland University (in short, University) resolving to remove the petitioner from service from the date of his suspension, the order dated 14.6.2012 removing the petitioner from service of Nagaland University w.e.f. 21.10.2011 and the resolution No. EC:32:2(iii) in minutes of the 32nd meeting of Executive Council, Nagaland University held on 14.6.2012 resolving to reject the appeal of the petitioner are called into question. Heard Mr. Yangerwati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present proceeding are that while working as the Deputy Registrar in the University of Hyderabad, he applied for the post of Registrar, Nagaland University and was subsequently appointed as Registrar, Nagaland University in 2009. After joining as Registrar Nagaland University, he had some problems for which he was forced to tender his resignation vide his letter dated 11.11.2010. Since his resignation was not accepted by the Executive Council, the petitioner submitted his joining report. However, his joining report was, not accepted by the University. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court having filed W.P.(C) 198(K)/2011. In course of time, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction requiring the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Registrar vide order dated 23.8.2011 passed in w.r.rc; 198(K)/2011. Pursuant to the order, so passed by this Court, the respondent authorities allowed the petitioner to function as the Registrar, Nagaland University. 4. However, on the same day by order dated 5.9.2011, the petitioner was directed to function as Officer on Special' Duty (in short, OSD). Being aggrieved, the petitioner, once again, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 229(K)/II. However, said proceeding was withdrawn since the order directing the petitioner to work as OSD had been recalled in the meantime. 5. Meanwhile, by Memo dated 19.9.2011, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit reply to the allegation made therein within a period of 10 days. Since necessary documents were not furnished to him, the petitioner requested the authorities concerned to supply him the copies of documents so that he can properly reply to the memo. Meanwhile, by Memo dated 19.9.2011, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit reply to the allegation made therein within a period of 10 days. Since necessary documents were not furnished to him, the petitioner requested the authorities concerned to supply him the copies of documents so that he can properly reply to the memo. But in spite of his repeated request, the respondents did not furnish him with any documents for submitting required reply to the memo. 6. The petitioner, however, submitted his reply to the memo on 21.10.11. But, to his utter surprise, on the same day, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide suspension order dated 21.10.11. According to the petitioner, said suspension order was issued since petitioner allegedly did not submit reply to the memo. Once again, being aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 253(K)/2011. 7. Notice of such proceeding was served on the respondents therein and this Court after hearing both the parties passed an order requiring the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of 10 days, vide order dated 23.11.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 253(K)/11. Meanwhile, Nagaland University appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. 8. The petitioner also filed written statement. The Inquiry Officer examined several witnesses. Unfortunately, he (Enquiry Officer) never gave the petitioner an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Equally unfortunately, the petitioner's statement was also not recorded by the Inquiry Officer. In due course, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Executive Council. 9. On the receipt of the report of Inquiry Officer, the Executive Council passed a resolution to the effect that the petitioner be removed from service from the date on which he was placed under suspension. The Executive Council further resolved that all expenditure, incurred by the Nagaland University in defending the cases in a Court of law as well as the subsistence allowances, paid to the petitioner should be recovered from him. It was also recommended that the removal of the petitioner from service was to be informed to the MHRD, the UGC and all the Central Universities. 10. On the basis of such resolutions, adopted on 1.6.2012, the Vice-Chancellor passed the order dated 14.6.12 under which the petitioner stood removed from service of Nagaland University w.e.f. 21.10.2011. It was also recommended that the removal of the petitioner from service was to be informed to the MHRD, the UGC and all the Central Universities. 10. On the basis of such resolutions, adopted on 1.6.2012, the Vice-Chancellor passed the order dated 14.6.12 under which the petitioner stood removed from service of Nagaland University w.e.f. 21.10.2011. Against the removal order, the petitioner submitted an appeal dated 04.07.2012. Since no communication has been made to the petitioner regarding the fate of his appeal, the petitioner approached this Court once again by way of filing W.P.(C) 228(K)/2012. 11. This Court on hearing the parties directed the respondents herein to dispose of the appeal on or before 31.12.12. The order passed by this Court on 23.11.12 in W.P.(C) No. 228(K)/12 was duly communicated to the authorities concerned and thereafter, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 5.12.12 that no further action need be initiated by the University since the appeal had already been disposed of. 12. According to the petitioner, the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in total violation of rules governing the disciplinary action against a public servant. Such enquiry was conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice as well and therefore, the present proceeding has been initiated seeking quashment of resolutions aforementioned as well as the order dated 14.6.12 under which the petitioner stood removed from service of Nagaland University. 13. Notice of this proceeding was served on the respondents. The respondents entered appearance and having filed counter affidavit, contested the proceeding. It has been contended that the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed since the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner had suppressed some material facts necessary for due disposal of the dispute in the proceeding in question. The relevant part of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:- "i. Suppression of material facts The grievance of the writ petitioner in the writ petition is that opportunity was not afforded to him and he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and his statements were not recorded by the Inquiry officer. The relevant part of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:- "i. Suppression of material facts The grievance of the writ petitioner in the writ petition is that opportunity was not afforded to him and he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and his statements were not recorded by the Inquiry officer. In this, connection, it is stated that when the charge was farmed against the petitioner and show caused Notice was served to the petitioner with a direction to submit his reply within 10 days, he sought for extension of time and accordingly, he was directed to submit his written reply and as such, on 21.10.11, suspension order was issued. It is pertinent to state herein that when a one man inquiry officer was appointed to inquire about the allegation against the rule petitioner, on 10.5.12, the petitioner has written a letter to the Inquiry Officer stating that "I now realized that the process, I might have committed some lapses of commissions and omissions in violation of the service matter without any willful intention. Further, my action might have offended many members of the University staffs, students and public in general and for which act I am deeply regretting and tender my apology" and further the petitioner has admitted to his guilt and such, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 11.5.12 to the Executive Council basing on the letter dated 10.5.12 submitted by the petitioner. Before the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.10.11, ample opportunity was afforded to him, but since he has admitted to his guilt on the charges levelled against him, the petitioner was placed under suspension. However, by suppressing all these material facts the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court by taking contrary stand and as such, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismissed the instant writ petition with cost. ii. Secondly the writ petitioner is also contenting that he was removed from service with retrospective effect from the date of his suspension which is in total contravention of the Central Civil Service (Classification & Control) Rules, 1965 (Herein referred to as CCS Rules). In this connection, it is stated that for regulation of the service conditions of the employees of the Nagaland University, the Nagaland University is following the provisions of the Nagaland University Act 1989, statute & Ordinance. Besides, the Nagaland University has adopted the CCS Rules. In this connection, it is stated that for regulation of the service conditions of the employees of the Nagaland University, the Nagaland University is following the provisions of the Nagaland University Act 1989, statute & Ordinance. Besides, the Nagaland University has adopted the CCS Rules. The employees of the Nagaland University are governed by the Nagaland University Act, Statute and Ordinance, the Nagaland University also adheres to the CSS Rules. Section 28(5) of the Nagaland University Act provides that" The removal of a teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee shall take effect from the date on which the order of removal is made: Provided that where the teacher, member of the academic staff or other employees is under suspension at the time of his removal, such removal shall take effect from the date on which he was placed under suspension, It is stated that the petitioner has pleaded before the Inquiry Officer for immunity taking the ground that he is holding a statutory post which is outside the purview of CCS Rules. Now the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition is taking a plea that he was removed from service in total contravention of the Rules.' However, the petitioner was removed from service by following the provisions under the Nagaland University Act, 1989. From the above action of the petitioner, it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court without clean hand and mind and approaching this Hon'ble Court by suppressing the material facts and as such, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 10. That the writ regard to the statements made in paragraphs 18, 28, 30 & 34 of the writ petition, this deponent beg to state that as stated in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner was given ample opportunity by the University as well as by the Inquiry Officer. However, when the Inquiry was in progress, the petitioner voluntarily submitted a letter dated 10.5.12 to the Inquiry Officer whereby, he has admitted to his guilt and tendered apology and as such, basing on his letter dated 10.5.12, the Inquiry Officer has forwarded the Inquiry report to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 11.5.12. However, when the Inquiry was in progress, the petitioner voluntarily submitted a letter dated 10.5.12 to the Inquiry Officer whereby, he has admitted to his guilt and tendered apology and as such, basing on his letter dated 10.5.12, the Inquiry Officer has forwarded the Inquiry report to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 11.5.12. Thereafter, the said Inquiry report was put up before the Executive Council and after consideration of all materials on record, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 14.6.12 by following the provisions of law." 14. The further case of the respondent was that vide show cause notice under memo dated 19.9.11, the petitioner requested the authorities concerned to submit his reply in regard to some allegations, mentioned therein within 29.9.11. However, on the request of the petitioner, vide letter dated 27.9.11, the time for submission of his written reply was extended up to 20.10.11. However, on 20.10.11, the petitioner did not submit reply to the show cause notice nor did he pray for extension of time to submit his reply for which on 21.10.11, the petitioner was placed under suspension, copy of which was served on the petitioner same day. 15. In course of time, the petitioner was supplied with all the documents, relied on by the Department. However, some records, such as, service book and other related matters could not be supplied to the petitioner but those records were available in the office and were opened for verification and inspection at any time which was known to the petitioner since he was the head of the administrative unit of the University during the time under consideration. 16. In course of time, the petitioner submitted his written statement denying all the allegations against him. However, when the proceeding had covered a lot of grounds, on 10.5.12, the petitioner has submitted a letter to the Inquiry Officer incorporating following facts:- "I now realized that in the process, I might have committed some lapses of commissions and omissions in violation of the service matter without any willful intention. Further, my action might have offended many members of the University staffs, students and public in general and for which act I am deeply regretting and tender my apology" and further admitted to his guilt." 17. Further, my action might have offended many members of the University staffs, students and public in general and for which act I am deeply regretting and tender my apology" and further admitted to his guilt." 17. Since the petitioner had admitted his guilt, such admission was accepted as such admission appears to be voluntary and on the basis of such admission, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the petitioner stood proved, prepared a report in that connection and forwarded his report to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 11.5.12. In course of time, the report of Inquiry Officer was placed before the Executive Council for its consideration. 18. The Executive Council, on consideration of materials before it, was pleased to accept the report of Enquiry Officer and was also pleased to recommend the removal of the petitioner from service from the date on which he was placed under suspension. On the basis of such recommendation, the respondent authorities was pleased to remove the petitioner from service from the date of his suspension vide order dated 14.6.12. 19. It has been contended that though the petitioner had complained that the enquiry was conducted without giving him any opportunity of being heard, such contention is without any substance since he was sought to be associated with the enquiry in question from the initial stage. However, for his not cooperating with the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority was forced to place him under suspension on 21.10.2011. 20. In regard to the contention that he is governed by Central Civil Service rules, it has been stated that he, being an Officer of Nagaland University, is basically governed by the Nagaland University Act and the rules and regulation framed there under. Only on those matters where rules, regulations are silent, the University is governed by Central Civil Service rules. 21. It has been stated that under Nagaland University Act, a person who is under suspension, can be removed from service from the date on which he was placed under suspension. In that connection, the provisions, incorporated in Section 28(5) of the Act is referred to. The petitioner, however, tried to refute such contention, made in the counter affidavit having filed affidavit-in-reply reiterating what he has stated in his petition. 22. In that connection, the provisions, incorporated in Section 28(5) of the Act is referred to. The petitioner, however, tried to refute such contention, made in the counter affidavit having filed affidavit-in-reply reiterating what he has stated in his petition. 22. However, in regard to the letter dated 10.5.2010, the petitioner contends that he has submitted such, not in response to the charges brought against him but in explaining his conduct in relation to his publishing some news items in 2011 in some newspapers in Delhi. Therefore, his admission cannot be construed as admission to the charges levelled against him. He, therefore, urges this Court to grant him the reliefs, he sought for in the proceeding at hand. 23. I have considered the rival submissions having regard to the pleaded case of the parties and the documents attached therewith. One of the important contentions, raised by the petitioner, was that he had come to Nagaland University on deputation basis to serve it from the post of Registrar of Nagaland University. He came to join such post when he was working as Deputy Registrar in Hyderabad University. 24. Since he came from Hyderabad University on deputation, since on his coming to Nagaland University on deputation he still remains an Officer of Hyderabad University which is a Central University, he continues to be governed not by Rules and Regulations framed under the Nagaland University Act but by the Central Civil Service rules. Now, let us see how far such contention is true. 25. There is no dispute over the fact that the appointment on deputation basis is governed by certain well established rules and procedures. Therefore, it can be presumed that before being brought a person on deputation to serve the borrowing department, some formalities need to be followed. Unfortunately, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that those formalities/procedures were followed before being brought the petitioner to the Nagaland University to serve it from the post aforesaid on deputation. 26. Quite contrary to it, there are indisputable evidence to show that an advertisement was made by Nagaland University seeking candidatures from eligible persons for filling up of the post of Registrar. 26. Quite contrary to it, there are indisputable evidence to show that an advertisement was made by Nagaland University seeking candidatures from eligible persons for filling up of the post of Registrar. In pursuance to such advertisement, the petitioner offered his candidature and on due consideration of his candidature, the petitioner was appointed as Registrar for tenure period of 5 years from the date of his joining to such post. For ready reference, the appointment order dated 5.5.2009 is reproduced below:- "APPOINTMENT ORDER On the recommendation of the Section Committee and in pursuance of the approval by Executive Council in its 19th meeting, the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University is pleased to appoint Dr. Hanmaiya Naik, to the post of Registrar of Nagaland University, for a term of 5 (five) years in the pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with a grade pay of Rs. 1000 p.m. plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules with effect from the date of joining. The appointment will be subject to the rules and regulations of the University as may be revised from time to time. The initial pay of Dr. Hanmaiya Naik will be fixed according to the rules Sd/- Dr. Kiyasetuo i/c Registrar" 27. The appointment letter, coupled with averments in counter affidavit, makes it more than clear that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Registrar, Nagaland University--not on deputation basis--but--as a fresh candidate--and that too--for a period of 5 years from the date of his assumption of office aforesaid. The fact that there is no whisper in the appointment letter about petitioner's being appointed as Registrar on deputation basis make such a conclusion inevitable. 28. It may be noted here that during the enquiry against the petitioner he took the stand that he was holding a statutory post, same being the post of Nagaland University and as such, he is not amenable to CCS Rules. Such a stand taken by the petitioner during the enquiry settled once for all that he is a full fledged officer of Nagaland University and as such, his plea that he served Nagaland University from the post of Registrar on deputation basis is found to be wholly without any substance. 29. Such a stand taken by the petitioner during the enquiry settled once for all that he is a full fledged officer of Nagaland University and as such, his plea that he served Nagaland University from the post of Registrar on deputation basis is found to be wholly without any substance. 29. I have already found that the petitioner claims that since he is an employee of Hyderabad University, a Central University and since he had served Nagaland University on deputation basis, the later cannot impose on him any major penalty which can be done only by the parent department same being Hyderabad University. Therefore, having removed him from service w.e.f., 21.10.2011, Nagaland University committed an error of enormous proportion. 30. Such a contention is found to be without any substance. Our forgoing discussions have already established very clearly that the petitioner was a regular employee of Nagaland University. Being so, Nagaland University has full authority to deal with him in accordance with rules and regulations framed under Nagaland University for the alleged offending conduct on the part of the petitioner and as such, Nagaland University can impose on him any punishment authorised under the regulations aforementioned. 31. One may note here that the petitioner tries to make out his case that he is a regular employee of Hyderabad University and has been serving Nagaland University during the time under consideration on deputation basis placing reliance on the resolution of Executive councils against the agenda No. EC:31:1 where-under the Executive Committee recommended that the termination of petitioner from service was to be communicated to the MHRD, the UGC and all Central Universities. 32. According to the petitioner, the Executive Council made such recommendation since he was an Officer of Hyderabad University. Such a contention is far from truth, it is true that under the recommendation aforesaid, the Executive council recommended that the matter relating to termination of the petitioner from service as well as other recommendations were to be informed to the parent organization viz. University of Hyderabad. 33. However, only for such recommendation, it cannot be said that the petitioner was an employee of Hyderabad University. This is because of the fact that Executive Council, Nagaland University directed the matter to be brought to the notice of his parent department to facilitate the recovery of the expenditures from the petitioner. University of Hyderabad. 33. However, only for such recommendation, it cannot be said that the petitioner was an employee of Hyderabad University. This is because of the fact that Executive Council, Nagaland University directed the matter to be brought to the notice of his parent department to facilitate the recovery of the expenditures from the petitioner. Being so, aforesaid recommendation no way helps the petitioner to show that the former is an employee of Hyderabad University serving Nagaland University on deputation basis. 34. The petitioner took offence of his being removed from service from the date on which he was placed under suspension stating that under CCS rules there is no provision for removing an employee from the date of suspension. It is true that there are no provisions under the CCS Rules to remove an employee from the date of suspension. 35. It is also true that the petitioner was removed from service w.e.f. the date on which he was put under suspension but then, we have already found that the petitioner is a regular employee of Nagaland University and under the regulations, framed under the Nagaland University Act, an employee of Nagaland University can be removed from service from the date on which he was placed under suspensions. 36. This brings us to the next chapter of this proceeding where I am to see if the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed for petitioner not coming to the Court with clean hands as well as for suppressing material facts. Before we address the query above, we need to know if the petitioner made any admission to the charge during the enquiry in question. 37. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not make such admission through his letter dated 10.5.2011 but his specific claim was that such admission was made not in relation to the charges which was subject matter of enquiry in question but in relation to his making some publication in some newspaper in Delhi which was, of course, not expected of a public servant, more particularly, a person serving in University. 38. In order to know the veracity of such contention, one needs to look into the contents of the letter dated 10.5.11. For ready reference the said letter is reproduced below:- "To Shri Metongmeren Ao, IAS (Retd) Inquiry Officer. 38. In order to know the veracity of such contention, one needs to look into the contents of the letter dated 10.5.11. For ready reference the said letter is reproduced below:- "To Shri Metongmeren Ao, IAS (Retd) Inquiry Officer. Sir, I humbly submit to your kind authority that notwithstanding the replies submitted by me in defence of the charges levelled against me by the University authority, I now realised that in the process I might have committed some lapses of commissions and omissions in violation of the service matters without any willful intention. Further, my action might have offended many members of the university staff, students and public in general and for which act I am deeply regretting and tender my apology. I have to admit that I was put to unbearable situation with the threat to my life all along. But now, realising the futility of a contest with the authority over my action, I realised that it will not lead to the to any solutions. As it is, I have only little time for my retirement and then to settle peacefully. I, therefore, request your good honour to treat my case with leniency and I may be relieved from the Nagaland University, since I admit my guilt in good faith in return for a peaceful settlement of the pending matter. Yours faithfully, Dr. P.H. Naik Registrar Nagaland University." 39. When one reads the contents of the letter dated 10.5.2012 in between the lines, it would appear more than clear that the admission was made not in reference to any other charge/allegation but was made in the context of charges, brought against him which was the subject matter of the enquiry in question. The fact that such an admission was made in the midst of enquiry against him has doubly confirmed such admission was made only in response to the charges, levelled against him. 40. One may note here that in his report, the Inquiry Officer opined that the petitioner had all of a sudden changed his stand to admit his guilt although he was vehemently resisting the charges against him all along. Such a development, according to Inquiry Officer, came to him as a bomb shell. This further fortifies that the petitioner did make a statement admitting the charges levelled against him. 41. Such a development, according to Inquiry Officer, came to him as a bomb shell. This further fortifies that the petitioner did make a statement admitting the charges levelled against him. 41. It is in those backdrops, let us see whether the allegation of petitioner approaching the Court with dirty hands stands to reason. We have already found that the letter dated 10.5.11 submitted by him admitting his guilt has enormous bearing on the outcome of the present proceeding. However, the petitioner remains completely silent about his making such admission during the course of enquiry, initiated to ascertain the charges, brought against him and he made such statements on his own volition. 42. He discloses such episode only when his making admission before the Enquiry Officer was brought to the notice of this Court by the State respondents having filed counter-affidavit. In other words, he disclosed that he made some admission during enquiry against him only when it was no longer possible for him to hide such facts from the notice of the Court. 43. Worse still, he tried to make a light work of aforesaid episode by stating that he made such admissions in relation to some other matters which are already found to be far from the truth. Unfortunately, such an effort from the side of the petitioner reveals more than what the petitioner actually tried to hide from the notice of the Court. This is also a clear testimony of petitioner coming to the Court with dirty hand. Same is also testimony of petitioner being guilty of suppressing material facts. 44. We have already found that the petitioner was not appointed as Registrar, Nagaland University on deputation but he joined the same as fresh appointee being made in pursuant to the advertisement inviting application from qualified candidates for filling up the vacant post of Registrar, Nagaland University. However, the petitioner made a strenuous effort to show that he was appointed to the post of Registrar, Nagaland University on deputation basis. This is one more example of petitioner not coming to the Court with clean hands. 45. The petitioner strenuously claims that he was not given an opportunity to defend the charges against him appropriately. Rather he was placed under suspension quite abruptly so as to prevent him from resisting the charges against him effectively. This is one more example of petitioner not coming to the Court with clean hands. 45. The petitioner strenuously claims that he was not given an opportunity to defend the charges against him appropriately. Rather he was placed under suspension quite abruptly so as to prevent him from resisting the charges against him effectively. In that connection, I have visited the various documents, filed by the respondent University which were annexed with the counter affidavit and have found that the petitioner was asked to submit reply to the show cause notice on 29.09.2011. 46. However, on 27.9.2011, he approached the respondent authorities and prayed for time to submit his reply which was accepted and he was given time upto 20.10.2011 to submit his reply. However, on 20.10.11, the petitioner did not submit his reply for which on 21.10.11 he was placed under suspension. These important facts were not brought on record while he filed the pension seeking the reliefs aforementioned. 47. In that context, it may be stated that I have gone though the record which in produced before the Court in pursuant of the order passed by this Court and have found that the petitioner had participated in the Enquiry proceeding. The petitioner even cross examined witnesses. In spite of his participating in the proceeding aforesaid, the petitioner persistently claims that he was not allowed to participate in the inquiry against him. These are more and more testimonies of petitioner not coming to Court with clean hands. 48. It may be noted that in the counter affidavit the respondent University had admitted that Enquiry Committee report could not be furnished to the petitioner because of the fact that the Disciplinary Proceeding had already been initiated against him on the same allegations. However, such report was furnished to him on 9.10.12. However, in view of foregoing discussion such an infirmity, ill my considered opinion could not make the inquiry report in question unsustainable, more so, when the petitioner is found to have made admission in course of the enquiry. 49. I have already found that the petitioner was asked to participate in the enquiry in question right from day one and in response thereto he participated in the inquiry. 49. I have already found that the petitioner was asked to participate in the enquiry in question right from day one and in response thereto he participated in the inquiry. Since the petitioner had admitted his guilt in the midst of enquiry and since such admission was found to be voluntary and deliberate I have found that report of Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him cannot be interfered with. 50. These relations, coupled with the facts that petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and the fact that he was also found guilty of suppressing some very materials having huge bearing on the matter under the scrutiny in this proceeding further demonstrate that this writ Court cannot grant any reliefs, so prayed for by the petitioner in the proceeding in hand. 51. In the conspectus of our forgoing discussion, I have found reason to hold (a) that the petitioner was a regular employee of Nagaland University and as such, he is amenable to the Nagaland University Act and the Rules framed there-under, (b) that he was guilty of the charges, levelled against him and that (c) he is liable to be punished in accordance with the prescription, rendered in the Act and the Rules aforementioned. Being so present proceeding lacks merit and as such, same needs to be dismissed. 52. But then, the materials on record also reveal that on some earlier occasions, the petitioner was forced to approach this Court and as such, the order under which the respondent University was authorised to recover legal expenses, incurred by the Nagaland University, from the petitioner is found unsustainable and therefore, such order is liable to be quashed and set aside and same is accordingly set aside. 53. Consequently, except to the extent, stated above, the Resolution No. EC:3:1 in 31st meeting minutes dated 1.6.2012 adopted by the Executive Council, Nagaland University (in short, University) resolving to remove the petitioner from service from the date of his suspension, the order dated 14.6.2012 removing the petitioner from service of Nagaland University w.e.f. 21.10.2011 and the resolution No. EC:32:2(iii) in minutes of the 32nd meeting of Executive Council, Nagaland University held on 14.9.2012 resolving to reject the appeal of the petitioner are called into question, having been found not unlawful and illegal, are not interfered with. With the above observations, the proceeding at hand is disposed of, as indicated above.