Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010197652025 2025:GAU- AS:12175-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./234/2025 THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND 4 ORS GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, GUWAHATI-781014. 2: THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI 781014 3: THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-781014. 4: THE TREASURER GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-781014. 5: THE SUPERINTENDENT ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-781014 VERSUS SRI RUDRA CHANDRA DAS S/O-LATE ANANDA RAM DAS, VILLAGE KUKURMARA, CHAIGAON, P.S.- CHAIGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781134. Advocate for the Petitioner : SC, G U, MR. P J PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 08/09/2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the review petitioners, who submits that the impugned order dated 13/08/2025 passed in WA No. 255/2025 should be reviewed, inasmuch as, he was not able to project the other issues in the writ appeal at the time of disposal of the same. He submits that the review petitioner had not made submissions with regard to the payment of salary of the respondent, which the respondent was not entitled to in terms of various decisions of the Supreme Court. He also submits that in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224], this Court has the power to review an order for any other sufficient reason as provided in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 2. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioners. 3. The respondent’s termination from service had been made under clause(b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, without there being any satisfaction being drawn by the authorities, to the effect that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondent- petitioner in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, vide judgement and order dated 06/09/2024 passed in WP(C) 6962/2021, had set aside Page No.# 3/4 the termination order by following the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel & Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 398]. 4. The appeal filed by the review petitioners, i.e. WA 255/2025, was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the review petitioners had not been able to show that they had recorded their satisfaction, that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, prior to invoking the said clause for terminating the service of the respondent/writ petitioner. 5. The counsel for the review petitioners submits that the respondent is not liable to receive any salary during the period he did not do any work with the review petitioners, in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Siraj Uddin Khan [(2019) 7 SCC 564]. 6. The question of the petitioner not being eligible for payment of salary was not an issue that had been raised at the time of hearing of the writ appeal and as such, no decision on that issue had been made by us. The issue at the time of disposal of the writ appeal was only with regard to whether clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution could have been invoked, for terminating the service of the respondent. As the issue of salary was not an issue at the time of disposal of the appeal, we are inclined not to take up the said issue at this stage. 7. The review petitioners, in the present review petition, have not shown this Court any document showing that the review petitioners had recorded their Page No.# 4/4 satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, prior to terminating the service of the respondent. As such, we do not find any ground to allow this review petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant