SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. L.P.A. No.171 of 2020 The instant appeal is under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order/judgment dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5091 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the orders of suspension dated 09.05.2019 and 06.08.2019 as also the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated vide charge memo dated 26.07.2019 as well as subsequent appointment of Inquiring Authority vide order dated 02.09.2019 and notice of inquiry issued by the Inquiring Authority vide memorandum dated 06.09.2019 has been quashed by allowing the writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case which required to be enumerated reads as hereunder:- The writ petitioner was appointed, vide order dated 18.11.2011 issued under the signature of Registrar on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee which has been accepted by the Executive Council in its 9 th meeting held on 14.11.2011, as Medical Officer in the appellant-Central University of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner, after having accepted the terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment, has started discharging his duty. The Registrar of the appellant University has issued notice upon the writ petitioner on 16.09.2013 informing the writ petitioner about a decision to dispense with his services w.e.f. 14.09.2013 after paying one month salary and allowances in lieu of notice period. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6163 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2016, in pursuance thereto, he was reinstated to the post of Medical Officer of the University with immediate effect with a further direction that the period intervening between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purpose and the writ petitioner will be paid full pay and allowances for the intervening period. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that thereafter, the salary of the writ petitioner was withheld which compelled the writ petitioner again to approach this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3449 of 2018, wherein, after issuance of notice by way of ad-interim measure, the respondents have been directed to pay the current salary of the petitioner, if there is no legal impediment. Further, grievance of the writ petitioner is that since the writ petitioner has been meted out with repeated harassment and ill treatment has instituted an online FIR before the SC/ST Police Station, Ranchi bearing no.03/2019 dated 20.02.2019 against the respondent nos.2 and 3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that in counter blast to the said FIR, a disciplinary proceeding has been decided to be initiated by putting the writ petitioner under suspension exercising the power conferred under Statute 25(1) read with Section 11(3) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 2009) and Rule 19(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1965). Subsequently, vide order dated 23.05.2019, the appellant-University has issued a direction for payment of subsistence allowance in favour of the writ petitioner. The appellant-University has also issued memorandum of charge dated 26.07.2019 with a direction upon the writ petitioner to submit his written explanation in defence within 10 days' from the date of receipt of memorandum of charge. The writ petitioner, after receipt of the aforesaid memorandum of charges has requested the appellant-University vide letter dated 01.08.2019 to amend the memorandum of charges dated 26.07.2019, since as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, 15 days' time is desirable for submitting the reply in respect of memorandum of charges. The appellant-University, thereafter, has issued an order on 06.08.2019 mentioning therein that the disciplinary proceeding is yet to complete and as such, the respondent no.2, in exercise of power conferred upon him under Statute 25(1) of the Act, 2009 read with Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and on recommendation of a Review Committee has further extended the suspension of the writ petitioner for another period of 180 days. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the respondents has preferred the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
(3.) The writ petitioner has taken a ground that entire departmental proceeding is nothing but suffers from malice and bias. Since the order of suspension visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige and monetary loss and hence, cannot be passed without following the principle of natural justice and without application of mind. It has further been agitated before the learned Single Judge that the authority who has passed the order of suspension is having no jurisdiction to issue such order under the provision of Statute 25(1) of the Central Universities Act, 2009. Further, it has been contended that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not applicable in the matter of disciplinary action/suspension against the employee of the University as because Section 26(f) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 specifically speaks with regard to disciplinary action/suspension.;