Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010257702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/44/2026 PROF GURUPRASAD KHATANIAR S/O LATE RAJANI KANTA KHATANIAR, R/O HOUSE NO 11 (BRAHVISH), BONBONONI PATH, BONGAON, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI 781028 VERSUS THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR, JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI 781014, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI 781014 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI 781014 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 4:THE INQUIRY OFFICER PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING DRAWN AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 5:THE PRESENTING OFFICER Page No.# 2/11 PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING DRAWN AGAINST THE APPELLANT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. R B GOHAIN,MR. M SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, G U, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 22-04-2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This Intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2693/2025. By the impugned judgment and order, the said writ petition was allowed by holding that the inquiry stands vitiated for not giving the opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine four witnesses named in paragraph-16 of the said judgment and order by remanding the matter back to the Inquiry Officer and by setting aside and quashing the finding of the Inquiry Officer vide Inquiry report dated 13.02.2025, resolution dated 21.03.2025 of the Executive Council of the respondent no.1, University as well as all subsequent and consequential actions thereto. 3. The case of the appellant is that pursuant to granting of lien with extra-ordinary leave for a period of 3 (three) years, the appellant was Page No.# 3/11 serving in respondent no.1 University had joined Bhattadev University as Academic Registrar. Pursuant to a complaint, the appellant was arrested on 06.08.2022 and placed under suspension vide order dated 09.08.2022 w.e.f. 06.08.2022 in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Thereafter, by an order dated 31.01.2023, the appellant was relieved of his duties in the said University. Be it mentioned that there was a series of writ petitions and intra-court appeal by the appellant, which is not relevant to be referred to in this order. It would suffice to mention that the appellant issued a joining report dated 10.07.2024 in his service at the respondent no.1 University. However, vide letter dated 23.07.2024, the authorities directed the appellant to join the respondent no. 1 University at 3.00 pm. on 26.07.2024 and accordingly, the appellant joined his service at the respondent no. 1 University on the said date. However, vide order passed on 26.07.2024, he was put under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding. 4. The Court is informed at the Bar that from his suspension till date, the appellant has filed several writ petitions, which is not necessary for being referred to in this order. It would suffice to mention that the cause of action for the present intra-court appeal is the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2693/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed 5. The learned counsel for the appellant had had submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the element of bias which had vitiated the entire departmental proceeding and accordingly, the instant appeal has been preferred. It had been submitted that while he is pressing the main Page No.# 4/11 relief for interference with the impugned judgment and order, but his alternative prayer would be to allow the appellant to cross-examine the four witnesses, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2693/2025. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions and to sustain the instant challenge, has cited the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. V. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 555. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that certain subsequent events have taken place after the passing of the impugned judgment and order passed on 04.11.2025. The sequence of events are as follows:- a. The appellant had filed the instant writ petition on 19.11.2025. b. In the meantime, by issuing summon dated 14.11.2025, the Deputy Registrar and the Presenting Officer (Inquiry), Gauhati University (respondent no.5), in compliance with this Court’s order, required the appellant to appear before the Inquiry meeting on 21.11.2025 at 11:00 a.m. at the Registrar’s Conference Hall, Administrative Building of the respondent no. 1 University for the purpose of cross-examining the four witnesses, as allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 04.11.2025. c. By a letter dated 20.11.2025, the appellant informed the respondent no.5 that the present appeal has been filed which is yet to be listed before the Court, thereby informing the said authority that Page No.# 5/11 the instant appeal has been filed alleging bias on part of the Inquiry Officer as well as the Executive Council-cum-Disciplinary Authority, which has been served on the learned standing counsel for the respondents and accordingly, prayer was made for deferring the cross- examination. The respondent no. 5 was also informed that in the event the said authority decides to proceed with the proceedings, he would refrain from attaining the same based on the submissions made by the said letter dated 20.11.2025. d. By a reply dated 20.11.2025, the respondent no.5 informed the appellant that no directive/ order has been received from this Court and in view of the extremely short notice from the appellant’s end and the need to adhere strictly with the directions of this Court, his request for postponement of the departmental proceedings cannot be accepted. e. Subsequently, by the letter dated 12.02.2026, the appellant was informed by the Registrar of the respondent no.1, University that as per the resolution of the Executive Council of the University as passed in its meeting held on 27.01.2026, a report of the Inquiry Officer in connection with the departmental proceedings drawn against the appellant has been taken note of by the Council and accordingly as per the said resolution, the report of the Inquiry Officer as forwarded to the appellant, seeking his response within 7 (seven) days from the date of issue of the letter and the copy of the Inquiry Report dated 25.11.2025 (191 pages) was enclosed. f. In response, the appellant, by letter dated 19.02.2026, Page No.# 6/11 informed the Registrar of respondent no.1 University that the instant appeal and prayer for stay was pending before this Court and therefore, he had reserved his right to prefer a detailed response against the enquiry report as well as his right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. g. Thereafter, by letter dated 20.02.2026, the appellant was informed about the decision of the Executive Council of the respondent no.1, taken in meeting dated 20.02.2026, to impose the penalty of removal from service as per Rule 9 (vi) of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964. 8. At this stage, on a perusal of the relevant part of the said Inquiry report dated 25.11.2025, it is seen that the Inquiry Officer had held the Charged Officer is guilty of gross misconduct on account of both the charges, proven beyond reasonable doubt. 9. It may be mentioned that the Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as by the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 10. The appellant has taken the ground of bias projected against the Inquiry Officer. All the grounds on which this intra-court appeal has been preferred are extracted below:- (a) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the fact that the inspite of the liberty granted to the Respondent University by the Hon’ble Court regarding cross examination of the prosecution witnesses pursuant to the Order dated 27.01.2025 passed Page No.# 7/11 in WP(C) No. 351/2025, the Inquiry Officer did not deem it relevant enough to even entertain the prayer / application of the Appellant, which the Appellant preferred vide letter dated 30.01.2025 before the Inquiry Officer; (b) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the list witnesses arrayed initially by way of the Memorandum of Charges dated 23.10.2024 was changed, as indicated in the communication dated 01.01.2025, which however was not preceded by any notice to the Appellant, which is indicative of the fact that the Inquiry Officer acted in utmost haste and sought to catch the Appellant by surprise during the departmental proceeding; (c) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the proximity of the Prosecution Witnesses to the Inquiry Officer in as much as the Prosecution Witnesses are directly involved in the criminal proceeding being ACB P.S. Case No. 24 / 2022 pending against the Appellant and the fact that the Inquiry Officer was a senior administrator of the Assam Police and a product of the Indian Police Service; (d) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the element of bias in the entire departmental proceeding as much as the Inquiry Officer had proceeded beyond the mandate of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964, .and had recommended dismissal of service of the Appellant as against the finding of charges which an Inquiry Officer ought to have done; Page No.# 8/11 (e) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the Gauhati University had already accepted the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer vis-à-vis dismissal of the Appellant from service, which indicates bias against the Appellant, thereby rendering any fresh departmental exercise an exercise in futility; (f) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that for negation of bias, the body in question should be free from bias and it should hear the person affected before it decides the matter. However, for the Appellant, both of the above pre-requisites have been violated by the Respondent University as well as by the Inquiry Officer; (g) For that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the law is settled inasmuch if the departmental proceeding and the criminal trial are proceeding on the identical set of facts and the same involves a complicated question law and fact, the departmental proceeding ought to be stayed / deferred till finalisation of the criminal proceeding. 11. The projection of the appellant that the Inquiry Officer, being a Retired Police Officer of I.P.S. Cadre, was a senior administrator in the Assam Police and some of the prosecution witnesses were police personnel under Anti- Corruption Bureau, were directly involved in ACB PS Case No. 24/2022 and therefore, there was an element of bias, is not acceptable. For example, if in a Departmental Proceeding, the witnesses are persons serving in the same Department, will it mean that no personnel in the concerned Department can be an Inquiry/Enquiry Officer? The answer has be in the negative, unless it is shown that somehow the Inquiry Officer was a party to the sequence of events. Page No.# 9/11 In this case, it is not the case that the Inquiry Officer was involved in the trap case laid against the appellant. Therefore, merely because the Inquiry Officer was Police personnel, the existence of bias cannot be sustained. 12. In any event, the said challenge should have been made at the time of initiation of the Inquiry. 13. Taking note of the submissions made in the Bar that the Bar that the appellant had filed several writ petitions after his suspension in Bhattadev University and in respondent no.1 University, yet, assuming that W.P.(C) No.2693/2025, was the first writ petition to challenge the departmental proceeding, but it is settled law that if bias against the Inquiry Officer is alleged, not only there must be specific pleadings, but the concerned Inquiry Office has to be made a party respondent by name. 14. In the said context, it may be stated that from the projection made in the writ petition, it can be culled out that the appellant has vented his grievance against the manner in which the proceeding was conducted, but still, the element of bias was not alleged. The learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on paragraph 6 of the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By LRs. (supra), had submitted that even if the pleadings do not contain the exact plea and pleadings which may not contain the exact statutory language or expressions, but pleadings should be liberally construed and if it can be gathered from the statements regarding the conduct of the parties, the element of bias can be culled out. 15. The Court is unable to accept the said submissions. The pleadings expressing grievance regarding the manner in which proceeding was Page No.# 10/11 conducted, cannot be read as if the appellant is alleging bias against the Inquiry Officer. Moreoso, when the Inquiry Office has not been arrayed as party respondent in his own name. Therefore, the decision in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By LRs. (supra) is not found to help the appellant in any way. Therefore, the ground of bias, on which the instant appeal is based does not find favour of this Court to entertain the challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2693/2025. 16. In any event, the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.2693/2025, was allowed by this Court and the earlier Inquiry Report was set aside, giving the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine four witnesses. However, in his letter dated 20.11.2025, the appellant had specifically stated that he would refrain from attending the proceeding. Hence, as the operation of the judgment and order under challenge was not stayed, the appellant had refrained from participating in the proceedings of Departmental Inquiry at his own risk. 17. Be that as it may, in the meantime, as vide resolution dated 20.02.2026, taken by the Executive Council of the respondent no.1 University, it was resolved to impose the penalty upon the appellant of removal from service under Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules, which was duly communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 20.02.2026, the Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant must take such steps, as he may be so advised, in respect of the same. 18. There is another reason that must be assigned in this order. Due to the subsequent events that have occurred after passing of the judgment and order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Page No.# 11/11 No.2693/2025, thereby the appellant has been removed from service, if the challenge is entertained or if the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant is entertained, it might also be construed that the collateral challenge to the order of removal has been entertained in this intra-court appeal, which is beyond the scope of this intra court appeal. 19. Therefore, on all counts, this intra-court appeal fails. No interference is called for in respect of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2693/2025. 20. Resultantly, this intra court appeal is dismissed. 21. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. 22. Before parting with the records, it is clarified that in the event the order of removal of the appellant is put to challenge, the same should be heard without being influenced by any observations made in order. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant