Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 344 (GAU)

Sankar Deb Roy v. Union of India

2016-05-02

L.S.JAMIR

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : L.S. Jamir, J. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Zhevi Swu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, 3 and 4. None appears for the respondent No. 1, i.e., the Union of India. 2. Mr. S Dutta learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a qualified Medical practitioner having extra-qualification in Pediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynecology by working as House Staff in the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Agartala, Tripura, which is recognized by the Medical Council of India. The petitioner was initially serving as Medical Officer in the Assam Rifles, since 07.07.1995. While serving as such, the petitioner, in response to an advertisement, applied for the post of Medical Officer in the Nagaland University and. by Order dated 08.08.1997, he was appointed as Medical Officer in the Nagaland University and was posted at SASRD, Medziphema. The petitioner was released from the Assam Rifles and joined the post of Medical Officer, Nagaland University at SASRD, Medziphema. At the time of submitting his application, he has claimed for 4 (four) advance increment, in view of his experience and possessing extra-qualification. However, at the time of his appointment, no advance increment was granted. Therefore, after his joining, the petitioner submitted an application on 11.11.1997, before the Vice-Chancellor for granting 4 (four) advance increment in the pay scale. As there was no response, the petitioner again submitted another application before the Dean of the University and by letter dated 27.04.2000, the Dean of the University has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of advance increment. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor by Order dated 01.07.2000, granted 3 (three) advance increments to the petitioner subject to ratification by the Executive Council of the University, which is the highest administrative authority' of the University. The Executive Council of the University by its Resolution 6:16, also resolved to ratify the grant of 3 (three) advance increment to the petitioner if the same is permitted under the UOC Rules. The petitioner also, opted for and was granted Non-Practicing Allowance (N.P.A) and Conveyance Allowance. 3. It is also submitted that the Medical Officers serving in Central Universities are treated at par with the Medical Officers sewing in Central Health Services. The petitioner also, opted for and was granted Non-Practicing Allowance (N.P.A) and Conveyance Allowance. 3. It is also submitted that the Medical Officers serving in Central Universities are treated at par with the Medical Officers sewing in Central Health Services. The Ministry of Health & Family Affairs, Government of India, by Order dated 02.09.1998, has sanctioned Annual Allowance to non-teaching Medical Officer on general duty of Central Health Services @ Rs. 500.00 p.m., to such Medical Officer having Post-Graduate qualification and @ Rs. 300.00 p.m., to those without P. G. qualification. As the petitioner possess extra-qualification in Pediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynecology, he applied for Annual Allowance payable to Medical Officer having P. G. qualification. However, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Nagaland University', by impugned Order dated 19.01.04, has sought explanation from the petitioner for furnishing false information to the effect that the petitioner's P. G. degree in Obstetrics & Gynaecology' and in Paediatrics/extra qualification in Paediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynaecology, were not genuine. By the aforesaid Order dated 19.01.2004, the T.A and NPA, granted to the petitioner were withdrawn. The petitioner submitted written explanation dated 11.02.2004, to the Order dated 19.01.2004, denying the allegation and categorically stating that at no stage, right from the date of application for appointment had he stated or indicated even remotely that he possessed P.G. degree or Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and that what he asserted all along, in support of his grant of advance increment and for the Annual Allowance @ Rs. 500.00 p.m., was that he possessed extra-qualification in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Paediatrics, by successful completion of House-man-ship in the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital. The Dean of the University by letter dated 11.02.2004, has also requested the Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University for restoration of the NPA and TA. How ever, the same has not been restored. 4. Thereafter, the Registrar, Nagaland University by the impugned Memo dated 27.05.2004, communicated to the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor has accepted the explanation. However, the petitioner has been penalized by withdrawing the order granting 3 (three) advance increment and directing the petitioner to refund all the financial benefits drawn by him consequent upon grant of the 3(three) advance increments. Further, the Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University, by impugned Order dated 24.05.2005, has placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that, a case against the petitioner in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation/Inquiry/trial. Further, the Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University, by impugned Order dated 24.05.2005, has placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that, a case against the petitioner in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation/Inquiry/trial. Thereupon, the Registrar, Nagaland University issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 24.05.2005, alleging that the petitioner has furnished false information for the purpose of his appointment, which was proved to be fake/false by the Disciplinary Committee. The memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner only on 20.05.06 and the petitioner submitted reply to the Charge on 26.05.2006, denying the charges. 5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the Order dated 24.05.2005 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension, the Deputy Registrar, Nagaland University, by letter dated 23.06.2005, forwarded copies of Certificates of extra-qualification of the petitioner in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Paediatrics to the Medical Super-intendant, Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Agartala, for verification. The Medical Super-intendant, Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Agartala by letter dated 13.07.2005; has intimated that the Certificates were genuine. Although after enquiry, the extra-qualification Certificates of the petitioner were found to be genuine, no order to restore the sanction of 3 (three) advance increment was passed and instead, the University is recovering Rs. 6,792/- pm from the salary of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representation dated 01.07.2005, to the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University praying for revoking the order placing him under suspension and for restoration of NPA and TA and advance increments which were withdrawn by Order dated 19.01.2004 and 27.05.1004. 6. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner was selected for pursuing Post Graduate Course (MD) at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences at Imphal. The petitioner submitted an application dated 12.04.2006, to the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University with a prayer to revoke the order placing him under suspension so as to enable him to join the MD Course. As there was no reply, the petitioner by an application dated 25.04.2006, has intimated the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University that he was leaving Medziphema to pursue his MD Course, in anticipation of his approval. The petitioner surrendered his quarter in writing and joined the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences at Imphal. The petitioner has given his address at Imphal to the Nagaland University and the Memorandum of charge dated 24.05.2005, was served on him at his address at Imphal only on 20.05.2006. The petitioner surrendered his quarter in writing and joined the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences at Imphal. The petitioner has given his address at Imphal to the Nagaland University and the Memorandum of charge dated 24.05.2005, was served on him at his address at Imphal only on 20.05.2006. 7. Mr. S. Dutta further submits that the Registrar, Nagaland University served upon the petitioner another Memorandum dated 1.6.09, on the charge of leaving Medziphema during the period of suspension without permission in contravention of the order contained in the order of suspension dated 24.05.2005. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge on 03.07.2009. Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University, by Order dated 01.04.2010, revoked the suspension of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner joined his duties on 04.05.2010, at Medziphema. 8. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a domestic enquiry into the allegations in the Memorandum of charge dated 24.05.2005 and Memorandum dated 1.6.09 were ordered by appointing Prof. B.S. Chauhan of the Nagaland University, as Inquiry Officer. The domestic enquiry commenced on 07.07.2010 and concluded in the same month. The documents listed in Annexure - III of the Charge Sheets were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of his request. The petitioner submitted his defence statement before the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University on 10.08.2010. The Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University, has placed the issue relating to disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner before the Executive Council of the University, for its decision in the 27th Meeting of the Council held on 02.02.2011. The Executive Council after due deliberation, by Resolution No. EC 27: 12, has resolved to withdraw existing disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation dated 21.09.2011. before the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University, for passing Necessary order treating the period under suspension as period spent on duty, for restoration of NPA, TA, advance increments and consequential benefits. 9. The Deputy Registrar (ESTT), Nagaland University, by letter dated 08.02.12, has conveyed to the Dean of the University at Medziphema that as per decision of 29th Meeting of Executive Council, Nagaland University, the suspension period n respect of the petitioner from 24.05.2005 to 03.05.2010, would be treated as extra-ordinary leave without pay and further, the petitioner would forfeit his seniority for the suspension period in view of his absence from the designated Headquarters without Prior permission during the period of suspension. The Registrar In-charge. The Registrar In-charge. Nagaland University, by Order dated 29.08.2012, has further directed the Dean, SASRD, Nagaland University, Medziphema to recover the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner during the entire period of his suspension. 10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the power to place at Government servant under suspension should not he arbitrary and it cannot be exercised at the whims and caprices of the competent authority'. The petitioner has been placed under suspension by Order dated 24.05.2005 arbitrarily, on the imaginary plea that a case in respect of criminal offence against him is under investigation/inquiry/trial and was kept as such for a long period till revocation in the month of April, 2010. According to the petitioner, the respondents failed to produce any evidence whatsoever, at any stage to even remotely suggest that a case of criminal offence is under investigation. Therefore, the order to place the petitioner under suspension on imaginary ground is ex-facie illegal, void and a nullity. As such, the entire period during which the petitioner was under suspension has to be treated as period spent on duty' with all consequential benefits by following the settled principal of law that once the basis of a proceeding is gone all consequential action falls to the ground. It is also submitted that the Memorandum of Charge drawn against the petitioner is also vague. The charges were not clear, definite and specific and therefore, difficult for the petitioner to meet the vague charge. Therefore, the disciplinary' enquiry against the petitioner stands vitiated. 11. Learned senior counsel submits that the Resolution adopted by the Executive Council of the University in its 29th Meeting treating the period when the petitioner was under suspension as Extra-Ordinary Leave without pay and shall forfeit his seniority for his suspension period is also arbitrary and illegal. The said Resolution is contrary to the material available on record inasmuch as whatever dissatisfaction arose out of the petitioner's application claiming annual allowance payable to Medical Officer with P.G. qualification has been set at rest after accepting his explanation offering apology as per letter dated 27.05.2004. long before placing the petitioner under suspension by order dated 24.05.2005. therefore, the impugned Resolution adopted by the Executive Council of the University in its 29th Meeting, is ex-facie arbitrary' and illegal and is liable to be set aside and all consequential entitlement to the petitioner should be restored. 12. long before placing the petitioner under suspension by order dated 24.05.2005. therefore, the impugned Resolution adopted by the Executive Council of the University in its 29th Meeting, is ex-facie arbitrary' and illegal and is liable to be set aside and all consequential entitlement to the petitioner should be restored. 12. Learned senior counsel also submits that the Order dated 29.08.2012 issued by the respondent authorities for recovery of subsistence allowance granted to the petitioner while under suspension is also illegal and void inasmuch as, payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a bounty but a right. Further, the Order dated 19.01.04 withdrawing NPA and TA allowance being paid to the petitioner, which is lawfully payable and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, is ex-facie arbitrary', illegal and void. Therefore, the respondents ought to be directed to restore payment of NPA and TA. to the petitioner. 13. Teamed Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned Order dated 27.05.2004 withdrawing 3 (three) advance increments sanction on consideration of petitioner's past experience and acquisition of extra-qualification and further ordering refund/recovery' of the entire financial benefits so far derived from the advance increments, has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. It is submitted that the LPC issued by Commandant. 27th Assam Rifles, would support the claim of the petitioner that prior to joining the Nagaland University, he was serving in the Assam Rifles. 1410 order which visited the petitioner with civil consequences has been passed without disclosing the reason and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. The action of the respondent authorities is. therefore, arbitrary and illegal and the respondent ought to be directed to restore the 3 (three) advance increments to the petitioner and refund the amount so far recovered from his pay. 14. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 ; Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 ; Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 90 ; Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 ; Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 ; Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 90 ; Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 ; Chandigarh Administration & Anr v. Jagjit Singh & Anr reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745 and in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 496 . 15. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4/Nagaland University at the outset has raised preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground of misrepresentation/suppression of material facts and also, on the ground of delay and laches. Learned senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is challenging the Order dated 19.01.2004. Order dated 27.05.2004 and Order dated 24.05.05 after a lapse of about 8(eight) years. Therefore, the petition cannot be entertained at this belated stage and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 16. It is also submitted that the extra-qualification acquired by the petitioner in Pediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynecology cannot be treated as extra-qualification or equivalent to P.G. Degree. But on the strength of the Government of India letter dated 02.9.98. the petitioner, on 09.02.2003. had applied for payment of annual allowance of Rs. 500/- with P.G. Degree, The petitioner, on the same day, had also applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G. Degree holder. The petitioner has claimed for both P.G. Degree and non-P.G. Degree allowance by misleading the University and the same is violative of the Government of India guidelines as contained in letter dated 02.09.1998. Though the petitioner has annexed his application dated 09.02.2003, by which he had applied for payment of annual allowance of Rs. 500/- with P. G. Degree, he has not placed on record his application by which he had also applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G Degree holder which amounts to suppression of material facts with intent to mislead this Court. 500/- with P. G. Degree, he has not placed on record his application by which he had also applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G Degree holder which amounts to suppression of material facts with intent to mislead this Court. The extra-qualification acquired by the petitioner in Pediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynecology cannot be treated as extra-qualification or equivalent to P.G Degree and the petitioner by furnishing false in formation has availed undue service benefits. The conduct of the petitioner is, therefore, questionable as he has not approached this Court with clean hands and therefore submits that the writ petition should be dismissed on these grounds alone. 17. On merits, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the University had already granted the petitioner 3 (three) advance increments, for his past experiences w.e.f. 01.01.1997. based on the application and documents submitted by him. However since there was no documents to show as to whether the petitioner was on regular or contract. while serving in the Assam Rifles and moreover, as the documents submitted were doubtful, the Enquiry Committee vide its Minutes dated 16.12.2003, decided that the petitioner should submit proper documents and double benefit may not be given to the petitioner till the verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner. That apart, even the MBBS documents. Certificate of Registration, Mark-sheets were doubtful. Also, the documents such as - LPC, pensioner benefits and GPF contribution, submitted by the petitioner was prepared and signed by himself which is. therefore questionable. As such, an enquiry' was initiated against the petitioner for giving false information and accordingly placed the petitioner under suspension and the allowance entitled to him. if not, under suspension, were withdrawn till completion of the said enquiry. 18. Learned senior counsel for the respondent also denied the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned Order dated 19.01.2004, by which the petitioner was asked to explain within 1(one) month, the reason for furnishing false information to the University. In the reply dated 11.02.2004, the petitioner admitted his mistake and offered his apology. In the reply dated 11.02.2004, the petitioner admitted his mistake and offered his apology. Accordingly, the University by Order dated 27.05.2004, accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner with a condition that the 3 (three) advance increments granted to the petitioner will be withdrawn and directed the petitioner to refund the benefits withdrawn against the 3 (three) advance increments as the same are not entitled to the petitioner but has been availed by misleading the University. As the petitioner has availed undue financial benefits by giving false information and misrepresentation about his education qualification, the University has every right to recover the same from the petitioner. 19. It is further submitted that the petitioner has availed service benefits, which he is not otherwise entitled to and. therefore, a Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter. In view of the initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, the respondent authorities in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 (1) of the Statute of Nagaland University, has issued the Order dated 21.05.2005, placing the petitioner under suspension and has further ordered the petitioner not to leave the headquarters with out prior permission from the authority. He submits that the Enquiry' Committee after critically examining the necessary documents of the petitioner in its Meeting Minutes dated 10.06.2005, arrived at its finding as under: "Findings: 1. Dr. S.D. Roy in his application dated 26.04.2000 mentioned clearly that he possessed extra qualification in pediatrics and OG, which is misleading as residential junior staff cannot be treated as extra qualification or equivalent to PG Degree. This is opinioned by the Medical Experts present in the Committee meeting. 2. Dr. S.D. Roy in his application dated 09.02.03 has written for annual allowance of Rs. 500/-as PG Degree holder which is will-full misleading information. It was also found that on the same date he applied for another annual allowance of Rs. 300/- as non-PG degree holder. 3. Dean, SASRD has also written 2 different letters with same letter No on the same date recommending two different remuneration ( Rs. 500 - & Rs. 300/-) in respect of Dr. S.D. Rn which is gross violation of official procedure. 4. As per minutes of the last enquiry committee meeting held on 16th Dec, 2003, it was observed that Dr. Dean, SASRD has also written 2 different letters with same letter No on the same date recommending two different remuneration ( Rs. 500 - & Rs. 300/-) in respect of Dr. S.D. Rn which is gross violation of official procedure. 4. As per minutes of the last enquiry committee meeting held on 16th Dec, 2003, it was observed that Dr. S.D. Roy has submitted the statement of LPC, Pensionary benefits & GPF contribution prepared and signed by himself which cannot be treated as genuine, as this documents should come from the employer and not the employee. 5. The Committee also found many discrepancies/.... His educational certificate i.e date of qualification as mentioned in certificate of registration was 24th March 1992 while the dale of issuing final mark sheet was 28lh March 1992. date of original degree certificate issued was 22nd June 1992 whereas his certificate of registration was 31st March 1992. In any case the date of registration cannot precede date of is suing final mark sheet as this is a prerequisite for registration." 20. Learned senior counsel for the respondents also submits that in the suspension order dated 24.05.2005, a clear direction was given to the petitioner not to leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission from the authorities, but, the petitioner without obtaining approval from the authorities, voluntarily left the headquarters to undergo MD Course and thereby, violated the Order dated 24.05.2005. Therefore, the petitioner was served with another Order dated 01.06.2009, along with article of Charges for leaving the headquarters without permission during the period of suspension. 21. Denying the contention of the petitioner that the suspension order dated 24.05.2005 was revoked by Order dated 01.04.2010 for having tailed to-gather evidence in support of the allegations, it is stated that the suspension order was revoked as the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has already commenced and likely to take some time to conclude. As such, it is clearly stated in the said Order date 01.04.2010 that the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Order dated 01.06.2009, shall continue till its logical conclusion. Therefore, by order dated 01.06.10, the respondent authorities requested the petitioner to furnish information as regards the activities undertaken by him during his period of suspension. As such, it is clearly stated in the said Order date 01.04.2010 that the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Order dated 01.06.2009, shall continue till its logical conclusion. Therefore, by order dated 01.06.10, the respondent authorities requested the petitioner to furnish information as regards the activities undertaken by him during his period of suspension. In his reply dated 07.06.2010, the petitioner stated that during the period of suspension, he had proceeded to study MD Course in Oncology, 3 (three) Years Course, in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal. It is also stated that the petitioner had served as Senior Research Fellow in the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai from 15.06.2006 to 30.04.2010. Further, the petitioner has categorically stated in his reply that he had left the headquarters (Medziphema), without obtaining any official/written permission. 22. It is also submitted that the representation dated 21.02.2012, submitted by the petitioner for reconsideration of the resolution No. EC 29:4, was discussed in the 30th Meeting of the Executive Council. Since there was not much to be considered inasmuch as, the Executive Council in its 29th Meeting, has discussed the matter and has already given its opinion. the Executive Council has rightly upheld its earlier Resolution No. EC 29:4. Therefore treating the period of suspension in respect of the petitioner as Extra-Ordinary Leave without pay and forfeiture of seniority is not arbitrary and has placed reliance on Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and FR-17 -A (iii) and has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Memorandum dated 22.06.2010 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G and Pension. Department of Personnel & Training. Govt, of India. He therefore, submits that under the given facts and circumstances, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. In his support, learned senior counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 , Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 ) and Amur Singh v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2011) 7SCC 69, the Judgment & Order passed by this Court in W.P (C) No. 25 (K) of 2015 (M/s. Monzar Enterprises v. State of Nagaland) and Registrar, Co-operative Societies Haryana & Ors. v. Israil Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 ) and Amur Singh v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2011) 7SCC 69, the Judgment & Order passed by this Court in W.P (C) No. 25 (K) of 2015 (M/s. Monzar Enterprises v. State of Nagaland) and Registrar, Co-operative Societies Haryana & Ors. v. Israil Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 440 . 23. Mr. S. Dutta. learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the question of delay and laches does not arise as the respondent has revoked the suspension order only in the month of April, 2010. Also, there is no suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that the process against the petitioner was initated by the then Vice-Chancellor of the Nagaland University, by issuing the impugned Order dated 19.1.2004, seeking explanation from the petitioner for furnishing false information to the effect, that the petitioner's PG. degree in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and in Paediatrics/extra qualification in Paediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynaecology, were not genuine. He submits that the petitioner has also annexed his application dated 09.02.2003 in the writ petition. Therefore, not mentioning or placing on record the application by which the petitioner had applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G Degree holder, is not relevant for deciding the issue involved and does not amount to suppression of material facts with the intent to mislead this Court and therefore there is no merit in the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. 24. I have heard the submissions forwarded by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court proposes to dispose of this writ petition by considering both the preliminary objections as well as the merits together. 25. 24. I have heard the submissions forwarded by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This Court proposes to dispose of this writ petition by considering both the preliminary objections as well as the merits together. 25. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers.- "In the premises aforesaid, your humble petitioner prays that your Lordships may be pleased to call for the record of the case and issue a Rule calling upon respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of like nature be not issued and the respondents and such each of them be not directed to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned resolutions and the impugned orders and/or why a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of like nature be not issued aid the impugned resolutions (Annexure-7 Annexure-10 and Annexure-11) and the order to recover subsistence allowance, be not set aside and quashed and/or why any other appropriate writ or direction be not issued commanding the respondents (i) to treat the entire period of keeping the petitioner under suspension as period spent on duty for all counts, namely pay and allowance increments in the pay, promotions etc. to which the petitioner would have been entitled had he not been kept under suspension in pursuant to the impugned order dated 24.05.2005 (Annexure-11), (ii)to restore the payment of NPA and TA from the date of withdrawal thereof, (iii) to pay Annual Allowance to the petitioner form the date it fell due and or to issue any other appropriate writ or direction as would give complete relief to the petitioner and on hearing such caused or causes as may be shown to make the Rule absolute. And/or to pass such further or other order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper." 26. By this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality or otherwise of the disciplinary' proceeding and action taken by the respondent. As per the record, the suspension order was revoked only in the month of April, 2010. as the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has already commenced and likely to take some time to conclude. Also, it is clearly stated in the said Order dated 01.04.2010. that the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Order dated 01.06.2009, shall continue till its logical conclusion. As per the record, the suspension order was revoked only in the month of April, 2010. as the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has already commenced and likely to take some time to conclude. Also, it is clearly stated in the said Order dated 01.04.2010. that the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Order dated 01.06.2009, shall continue till its logical conclusion. When the suspension order was revoked only in the month of April, 2010 and the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is yet to conclude, it cannot be said that there is delay or laches, on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. 27. On the issue of suppression of material facts, in Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, it has been observed by the Apex Court that the appellant Company never disclosed that it had created third-party interest in the property mortgaged with the respondent Bank and that it had also shifted machinery and materials without informing the respondent pre-judicially affecting the interest of the Bank. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that all these allegations are relevant when the petitioner comes before the Court and prays for discretionary and equitable relief. Accordingly, it upheld that by dismissing the petition in limine, the High Court has neither committed an error of law nor of jurisdiction. 28. In Ramjas Foundation (supra), the proceeding was under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on ground of suppression of material facts as the appellant, inter alia, failed to mention about the large number of cases filed by him challenging the acquisition and which has a material bearing in the appeal. 29. In Amar Singh (supra), the writ petitioner filed the petition basing on some documents which, at the time of filing, the petitioner was aware of an investigation by the Delhi police in connection with forgery of the said documents. However, the facts about the investigation were not stated in the petition. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts and accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 30. However, the facts about the investigation were not stated in the petition. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts and accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 30. In M/s. Monzar Enterprises v. State of Nagaland, the petitioner, after participating in the Tender process and being unsuccessful, filed the writ petition questioning the allotment of the contract work without floating NIT. The petitioner has suppressed the material facts regarding his participation in the Tender process. Therefore, this Court dismissed the writ petition. 31. It is needless to say that a Court of law is a Court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a Court, he must place all material facts before the Court without any reservation. By material facts, it means all such facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issues involved in the case. Whether the conduct of the petitioner in not placing on record the application dated 09.02.2003, by which the petitioner had applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G. Degree holder, have a bearing for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the case? 32. In S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2004) 7SCC 166 it is observed as under: "13. As a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the Court, whatever view the Court may have taken. .... .... ..." 33. From the pleading, as well as, the submissions advanced by the rival parties, it is clear that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner does not relate to the application dated 09.02.2003, by which the petitioner had applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G. Degree holder. .... .... ..." 33. From the pleading, as well as, the submissions advanced by the rival parties, it is clear that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner does not relate to the application dated 09.02.2003, by which the petitioner had applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G. Degree holder. Therefore, considering the issue involved in the case, this Court is of opinion that by not stating and placing on record the application dated 09.02.2003, by which the petitioner had applied for payment of Rs. 300/- as annual allowance, as admissible to non-P.G. Degree holder, is not material, in the sense that it docs not have an effect on the merit of the case. 34. Accordingly, this Court does not find am merit in the preliminary objections raised. 35. One of the prayers of the petitioner is to set aside the Resolution No. 29:4 and Resolution No.30:17 adopted by the Executive Council of the Nagaland University. By Resolution No. 29:4, the Executive Council has resolved that the period of suspension in respect of the petitioner from 24.05.2005 to 03.05.2010 shall be treated as Extra Ordinary Leave without pay and further the petitioner shall forfeit his seniority for his suspension period, in view of his absence from designated Headquarters, SASRD, Medziphema, during the period of suspension, without leave or prior permission. By Resolution No.30:17. the Executive Council rejected the representation of the petitioner for treating the period of suspension from 24.05.2005 to 03.5.2010 to be treated as Extra Ordinary Leave without pay and for restoration of his seniority. 36. The aforesaid resolution has been adopted by the Executive Council, Nagaland University taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was absent from his designated Headquarters. SASRD, Medziphema, during the period of suspension, without leave or prior permission and on which there is no dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner was selected for pursuing Post Graduate Course (MD) at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences at Imphal. The petitioner submitted an application dated 12.04.2006, to the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University with a prayer to revoke the order placing him under suspension so as to enable him to join the MD Course. As there was no reply, the petitioner by his application dated 25.04.2006. has intimated the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University that he was leaving Medziphema to pursue his MD Course, in anticipation of his approval. 37. As there was no reply, the petitioner by his application dated 25.04.2006. has intimated the Vice-Chancellor, Nagaland University that he was leaving Medziphema to pursue his MD Course, in anticipation of his approval. 37. Considering the provisions of FR 17(1) and 17 A, this Court has no hesitation to say that the Resolution No. 20:4, adopted by the Executive Council of the Nagaland University, is in consonance with the afore mentioned Rules and that no illegality has been committed by passing the said Resolution. Accordingly, the University has also, rightly adopted the Resolution No. 30:17 of the Executive Council and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said Resolution No. 29:4 and Resolution No. 30:17, adopted by the Executive Council of the Nagaland University. 38. Another prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside the Order dated 28.03.2012 directing for recovery of the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension from his pay and allowances. Subsistence allowance is given to a suspended employee for his sustenance. It is in a way making a provision for maintenance and survival, a minimum livelihood. FR 53 provides that the subsistence allowance shall not be denied on any ground unless a Government servant is unable to/does not furnish a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession on vocation, during the period of suspension. It further provides that each claim for subsistence and compensatory allowance should be supported by a certificate by the Government Servant concerned to the effect that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation, during the period to which the claim relates. 39. The petitioner himself admits that during the period when he was under suspension. he pursued Post Graduate Course (MD) at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences at Imphal. Thereafter, the petitioner proceeded to Mumbai for advancement of knowledge in Oncology. As such, the petitioner was engaged in employment earning income/salary', during the period of his suspension. Therefore, considering the entire facts including the Resolution No. 29:4 adopted by Executive Council of the Nagaland University, this Court is of the opinion that the University' has rightly passed the Order dated 28.03.2012, directing to recover the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension from his pay and allowances. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected. 40. As regards the prayer for setting aside the Memo dated 19.01.2004, withdrawing the TA and NPA granted to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the same has nothing to do with the allegation of charges for which disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was initiated. Further, there is no dispute that the petitioner has extra qualification in Pediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynecology. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that withdrawal of TA and NPA by the Memo dated 19.01.2004 is not warranted. Accordingly, the Memo dated 19.01.2004 is set aside and quashed in so far as withdrawal of granting NPA and TA to the petitioner is concerned. The petitioners shall be entitled to NPA and TA from the date it was withdrawn by the respondents. 41. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 42. No cost.