A.Chakrabarti - (1.) THE order of termination dated 12.1.1993 at annexure No. 7 to the writ petition is the subject-matter of challenge In the present writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts, as contained in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Research Associate in the respondent University by letter dated 3.21986. THE University also provided accommodation to the petitioner like its other employees. On an Incident of quarrel between the petitioner and the wife of another employee of the University on 25.5.92, a departmental enquiry was started serving a charge sheet dated 24/25. 7.1992, for violation of Rule 8 (2) of the House Allotment Rules. Rule 8 of the said House Allotment Rules runs as under: "8 (1) No employee shall sublet the whole or part of his/her residence or any of his/her outhouse, garage etc. For non compliance of these rules, he will be liable for disciplinary action besides forfeiture of residential facility. (2) Allotment of a residence may be cancelled if the allottee fails to maintain harmonious relations with neighbours. Where the allotment of a residence is cancelled for conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of harmonious relations with neighbours, the officer may at the discretion of the Estate Officer, be allotted another residence of the same type at any other place after giving an assurance in writing not to repeat such conduct in future." It has also been contended that the residential colony of the University is situated at a distance of about 8 km. from the University. Mr. Sant Ram was appointed as Enquiry Officer and thereafter Mr. V. K. Jain was appointed. As to the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner has further complaint relating to examination of witness and production of documents. Detail of such grievance has been set out in the writ petition. That apart, serious complaint has been made of non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner. Thereupon by order dated 12.1.1993 the petitioner's service was terminated by giving him one month's notice. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the said termination order in the present writ petition. The respondents contested the proceeding by filing a counter-affidavit. It has been contended therein that the said Sant Ram, the Enquiry Officer was asked to do the preliminary investigation and petitioner did not co-operate therein and as such full-fledged investigation could not be carried on which was apparent from the report therein. Accordingly, the matter was entrusted for full- fledged enquiry to Sri V. K Jain which was conducted duly and the report was submitted. No injustice has been caused to the petitioner on the second enquiry being held as the petitioner was given full opportunity. Allegations relating to witnesses and documents have been denied.
(3.) RESPONDENTS contended that in view of the reason of misconduct of assaulting the wife of another employee, the impugned order was rightly passed. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit as also a supplementary affidavit denying the allegation of respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents. Parties agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage finally.;