Court declined to quash disciplinary proceedings but stayed further action pending the Chancellor’s decision.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at R.C. College, Sakra, was serving as the Examination Controller of B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. By Letter No. BSU(Examination Controller)-35/2025-1034 GS (I) dated 18 June 2025 and Memo No. B/1435 dated 19 June 2025, the respondent authorities appointed respondent no. 6 as Examination Controller and relieved the petitioner from that post.

Subsequently, Memo No. 161/VC dated 22 July 2025 was issued, pursuant to which a high-level committee was constituted to inquire into allegations of official misconduct; the University maintained that this was only an imputation and not a formal charge-sheet initiating departmental proceedings.

On 10 November 2025, this Court had directed that the departmental proceeding remain in abeyance after the petitioner submitted that the alleged charge memo lacked a list of documents and witnesses. The committee later submitted its report on 20 September 2025, recommending initiation of departmental proceedings for major punishment, including dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.

Whether Memo No. 161/VC dated 22 July 2025 constituted a defective charge-sheet warranting quashing of the proposed departmental proceeding

Whether the petitioner’s removal from the post of Examination Controller, without a specific show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing concerning such removal, was legally sustainable

Whether the Court should interfere with the departmental process at the preliminary stage, before the disciplinary authority had considered the petitioner’s objections

The Court applied the principle that a charge-sheet or notice initiating disciplinary action should not ordinarily be quashed at the threshold, since the delinquent employee must first raise objections before the disciplinary authority and await its decision.

The Court also considered Clause 15 of the Statutes Relating to the General Conditions of Service of Employees of the concerned Universities, which contemplates departmental proceedings for major penalties such as dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.

In relation to the petitioner’s removal as Examination Controller, the Court considered Memo No. BSU (VC)-45/2019-844/GS(I) dated 27 July 2020, which stated that an appointment made with the Chancellor’s approval could be terminated only after issuance of a show-cause notice and grant of an opportunity to submit a reply.

The Court held that the petitioner’s apprehension regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the basis of a defective charge-sheet was not substantiated. The University’s specific position was that Memo No. 161/VC was merely an order for a preliminary high-level inquiry and that no departmental proceeding had yet been initiated.

The subsequent committee report recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but this did not justify quashing the process at its inception because the petitioner could raise his objections before the disciplinary authority.

However, concerning the petitioner’s removal as Examination Controller, the University was unable to satisfy the Court that a specific show-cause notice relating to the proposed removal had been served, despite relying generally on a prior notice and the petitioner’s alleged admission of negligence.

Rather than directly quashing the impugned orders, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the petitioner’s right to challenge the removal before the Chancellor and directed that the matter remain in abeyance pending such consideration.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Chancellor within one week, challenging his removal from the post of Examination Controller. The Chancellor’s office was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders and pass a final order preferably within four weeks of receipt of the representation.

Until such decision was rendered, the concerned authorities were directed not to proceed further with the inquiry or departmental proceeding.