PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In W.P.(S) No.6304 of 2014, the petitioner seeks quashing of the part of the office order dated 20.07.2013 vide Annexure-18 of the writ application along with the part of the appellate order vide memo dated 31.10.2014, whereby the petitioner has been demoted from the post of Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist to the post of Assistant Professor-cum- Junior Scientist by virtue of cancellation of his promotion to the post of Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist, and the petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the petitioner on the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist, which the petitioner was holding prior to passing of the impugned orders.
(2.) In W.P.(S) No.6152 of 2014 the petitioner has sought for quashing the part of the office order dated 20.07.2013 and the part of the appellate order dated 31.10.2014, whereby the direct appointment of the petitioner on the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist (Extension and Social Forestry) has been snatched, without giving opportunity of being heard and therefore, the same has been passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist, which the petitioner was holding prior to passing of the impugned orders.
(3.) Sans details, the facts as emanated from the writ application, is that the petitioner joined service on 01.03.1984 as Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Forestry). After completion of 8 years, he has been promoted vide notification dated 28.07.1994 to the Senior Scale w.e.f 01.03.1992 and after completion of 5 years of services in the Senior Scale, he has been promoted on the post of Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist with effect from 01.03.1997 vide notification dated 06.05.1998 as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter, on completion of 8 years of services as Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist, the matter of grant of promotion of the petitioner was placed before the Expert Selection Committee, and the said committee recommended for grant of promotion and consequent thereof, vide office order dated 03.10.2005 petitioner was promoted as University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist with effect from 01.03.2005 as per Annexure-3/1 to the writ application. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of University Professor advertised vide Advertisement No.01/2004, and the petitioner was finally selected for the post of University Professor, following the procedure of selection. Accordingly, the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner vide appointment letter dated 11.11.2005 and the petitioner joined the said post and worked thereon till passing of the impugned orders. While continuing as such, on 28.05.2009 after around four years of unblemished service on the non-cadre post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist (Forestry), a show cause was served on the petitioner challenging the second phase promotion from Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Forestry), Senior Scale to Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist (Forestry), questioning the fitness of his two computer certificates, as per Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply refuting the allegations vide his letter dated 08.06.2009 as per Annexure-5 to the writ application. An enquiry committee was constituted under the provisions of Rule 13.9 of the Birsa Agriculture University Statute by framing charges on 05.08.2009, as per Annexure-6 to the writ application. The petitioner submitted his reply to the memo of charges, repudiating all the allegations vide letter dated 19.08.2009 as per Annexure-7 to the writ application. The petitioner also demanded from respondents documentary evidence/materials, which were forming the basis of charges, but the same was not entertained. The enquiry committee was re-notified, after lapse of around 19 months on 28.03.2011, since the earlier committee did not initiate enquiry as per Annexure-9 to the writ application. The petitioner requested for supply of defence materials and the documentary evidence vide letter dated 29.03.2011 as per Annexure-11 to the writ application but the same was not entertained. The petitioner also submitted question for cross examination of Sri Ashok Pathak on the first date of enquiry for clarification of the documents provided with the charges and for ascertaining the cause of action which was unfortunately entertained, as per Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The presenting officer in response to directive of enquiry officer submitted his written witness statement on 16.06.2011 and the enquiry report was submitted. The enquiry officer after due narration of evidences, proceedings, consideration and analysis of the witness statement of Sri Ashok Pathak, declared most of the charges as vague, duplicative and confusing and arrived at following two conclusions only (i) Dr. Quli did not take permission for the courses and (ii) the institute from where Dr. Quli studied, were not recognised by UGC/ICAR. On 21.04.2012, a second show cause was served on the petitioner on extraneous consideration which was not proved by the enquiry as per Annexure-16 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice. On 20.07.2013 a reasoned order and office order were passed demoting the petitioner from the cadre post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist, Extension and Social Forestry to Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Forestry) vide Annexure-18 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed appeal under Clause 13.9 of the Statute to challenge the punishment order to the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 vide order dated 31.10.2014 dismissed the appeal, upholding the punishment as evident from Annexure 20 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that the argument advanced during the personal hearing by the respondent no.2 vide Annexure-21 and the copy of the application of the petitioner submitted for the post of Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist do not justify the impugned orders nor indicates the commission of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the copy of the ICAR sponsored Summer Institute Certificate vide Annexure-23 to the writ petition to prove the illegality of the order passed by the appellate authority.;