DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed the decision of the appellate authority in agreeing with the imposition of a punishment of termination of service by the disciplinary authority. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer to the then Regional Engineering College, Durgapur. Such Regional Engineering College became National Institute of Technology, Durgapur in May 2003 under the full administration and financial control of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The petitioner was issued the order of suspension on October 1, 2004 in respect of the disciplinary proceedings by the Director in Charge on October 1, 2004 by invoking the provisions of Central Service Rules, 1965. He has submitted that, the Central Service Rules are not applicable to the petitioner. He has submitted that, the Director in Charge is not the appointing authority and, therefore, cannot be the disciplinary authority. The Board of Governors had appointed the petitioner and consequently, they are both the appointing and the disciplinary authorities.
(2.) In support of such contention, he has relied upon a revised Memorandum of Association of the National Institute of Technology Society (Durgapur) approved on April 8, 2003. Therefore, according to him, the Director not being vested with the jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, the entire disciplinary proceedings is vitiated. He has also referred the Rule 5.1 of the disciplinary action, penalties and appeal rules applicable to the employees of the institute. He has pointed out that, the Board of Directors did not delegate its power of authority to the Director or to the Director -in -Charge.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed the charge sheet dated October 8, 2004. He has pointed out that, five prosecution witnesses were named in the charge sheet. He has submitted that, no witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on October 8, 2004 itself. The Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry ex parte and had submitted its report on December 1, 2004. The petitioner had objected to such report. A de novo inquiry was ordered by the Director -in -Charge on February 10, 2005. Since the departmental proceedings were pending for a considerable period of time the petitioner had approached to the High Court for relief. By an Order dated April 20, 2005 the High Court had directed expeditious conclusion of the inquiry after extending reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner had participated in the inquiry. The petitioner had submitted documents in support of his contentions before the Inquiry Officer. The prosecution did not examine any witness. Alternatively, the prosecution witnesses were not allowed to be cross - examined by the petitioner. The inquiry report was considered by the disciplinary authority and the punishment of removal from service was imposed without affording the petitioner any opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report.;