Gauhati HC Upholds Dismissal Of Cardiology Professor For 7-Year Unauthorised Absence After He Missed Repeated Enquiry Notices

In brief

The question

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal order violated the principles of natural justice, including by denying the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or failing to furnish the enquiry report.

The court held

The Court held that no apparent violation of natural justice or other ground for interference under Article 226 had been established.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the dismissal order undisturbed.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Professor of Cardiology, was dismissed from service by order dated 17.09.2019 following disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence from 22.07.2012.

pp. 2–4

He challenged the dismissal under Article 226, alleging violations of natural justice, including non-supply of the enquiry report, and failure to consider his application for voluntary retirement dated 12.03.2013.

pp. 2–4

The respondents stated that notices to attend the enquiry were issued repeatedly, that the petitioner did not attend despite seeking and receiving an adjournment, and that he had represented against the enquiry report.

pp. 4–5, 7–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal order violated the principles of natural justice, including by denying the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or failing to furnish the enquiry report.

pp. 5–8

ii.2. Whether the dismissal order was liable to be set aside for failure to properly consider the petitioner’s voluntary-retirement application or because the penalty was disproportionate.

pp. 3–4, 8–9

03Law Applied

Under Article 226, certiorari review examines the legality of the decision-making process, rather than reassessing the merits of the decision; judicial review is directed to correcting manifest errors of law or procedure, significant injustice, bias, or grossly unreasonable outcomes.

p. 5 · ¶ 13

The Court relied on Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471, for this principle.

p. 5 · ¶ 13

A disciplinary proceeding must afford a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend oneself, and the penalty must be considered in light of the misconduct and the relevant circumstances.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 18–20

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner had been given repeated opportunities to participate in the enquiry, including an adjournment granted at his request, but did not attend subsequent hearings.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 15–17

The petitioner’s rejoinder did not deny the respondents’ account of the notices and opportunities provided.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 15–17

The dismissal order also showed that the enquiry report had been submitted and that the petitioner had represented against it.

p. 8 · ¶ 18

The Court further found that the order addressed the voluntary-retirement application on relevant grounds and that dismissal was not disproportionate to the prolonged unauthorised absence.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 19–20