Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010110812026 2026:GAU-AS:7962-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/175/2026 DR SHEKHAR KANTI SARKAR SON OF SHRI SUNIL CHANDRA SARKAR, RESIDENT OF SRISHTHI RESIDENCY, BLOCK-2, FLAT NO. 2/6/D, LANKESHWAR, P.O. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, PIN- 781014 -VERSUS- THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY HOJAI THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435 3:THE VICE CHANCELLOR RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435 Page No.# 2/7 4:DR. SANDIP RATNA REGISTRAR (IN- CHARGE) RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY HOJAI ASSAM PIN - 78243 Linked Case : WA/176/2026 DR. SHEKHAR KANTI SARKAR SON OF SHRI SUNIL CHANDRA SARKAR RESIDENT OF SRISHTHI RESIDENCY BLOCK-2 FLAT NO. 2/6/D LANKESHWAR P.O. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY PIN- 781014 -VERSUS- THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY HOJAI THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435 3:THE VICE CHANCELLOR RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435 4:DR. SANDIP RATNA REGISTRAR (IN- CHARGE) RABINDRANATH TAGORE UNIVERSITY HOJAI ASSAM PIN - 782435 Page No.# 3/7 For the appellant : Mr. Surajit Dutta, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Ms. I. Das, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, S.C., Higher Education for Respondent No.1 and Mr. S.K. Medhi, Advocate For respondent Nos.2 and 3 In both the appeals. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 08-06-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) The two writ appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. We have heard Mr. Surajit Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant in both the appeals and Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education for respondent No.1 and Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The appellant while serving as Deputy Registrar at Rabindranath Tagore University had been given an additional charge of Registrar. During the continuance of the appellant as in-Charge Registrar, the post was thrown open for selection by the University to be filled up for which many applications had been received and entertained. However, the Page No.# 4/7 entire process was derailed because of some objections regarding acceptance of the applications even late-comers. In the meantime, the respondent No.4 was appointed as in-charge Registrar on probation. It was at this stage that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice, imputing allegations against his initial appointment as Deputy Registrar, more particularly, with his P.G. degree. 4. In contemplation of a departmental proceeding against him, he was placed under suspension. 5. This suspension order was challenged by the appellant vide WP(C) 2412/2026 on the ground that it was issued by respondent No.4 who was not authorised to issue such an order. However, the writ petition failed on the ground that the order suspending him clearly reflected that the disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him and that such decision was not by respondent No.4, but a decision of the Executive Council authorising action against the appellant, which resolution was approved by the Vice Chancellor, who is the ex-officio Chairman of the Executive Council. 6. An argument was raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that Section 54 of the Rabindranath Tagore University Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘2017 Act’) provided that in such a situation, the decision had to be taken by the Executive Council itself and not through in-Charge Registrar. However, this argument was not sustained and the suspension order was not interfered with. 7. In the meantime, the appellant was served with a charge memo Page No.# 5/7 with three articles of charge which need not be stated in detail here, except to the extent that it related to the invalid degree and certificates of experience furnished by the appellant for his induction in service, or for putting up his candidature for the post of Deputy Registrar. 8. The charge memo was also challenged by the appellant more or less on the similar grounds, namely, that the statute with respect to the condition of service of the office bearers in the University had never been formulated. The 2017 Act clearly specifies that the service conditions of the employees of the University shall be governed by a statute which would be framed by the Executive Council and shall be ratified by the Court. 9. It was also argued before the learned Single Judge that even though the Executive Council had resolved to adopt the Assam Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, but such adoption itself was not sufficient to invoke its provisions unless it were made part of the Act after the scrutiny of the Court. 10. The sum and substance of the argument of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that in the aforesaid circumstances, namely, absence of any statute or provision under which the appellant could have been proceeded against, his suspension order and his being served with the charge memo, were without jurisdiction and authority. 11. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, though at the first blush might appear to be meaningful but accepting such an argument would be difficult for the reason that in the interregnum, aid of external rules have been taken and Page No.# 6/7 the decision to subject the appellant to departmental proceeding on the charges mentioned in the charge memo served upon him, had been taken by a resolution of the Executive Council with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor as the Chairman of the Executive Council. The same could not have been challenged, especially with respect to the initiation of the proceedings in face of the charges that have been levelled against the appellant. 12. There is no doubt that normally exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a High Court cannot quash a charge memo subject only to the caveat that issuance of charge memo or show-cause notice is wholly without jurisdiction and completely illegal. 13. In the present case, we do not find that there has been any breach of any provision and in the absence of statute, which was required to be framed by the University, any infraction or any emergent situation can be left unattended. 14. The University otherwise would be well advised to proceed with the formulation of the statute under the Act and put it for the scrutiny of the Court for its incorporation, but that cannot be a ground to forestall the proceedings which have already been initiated against the appellant. 15. However, after some arguments, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that he would not press for the consideration of his candidature for the post of Registrar and that he would be satisfied if in the departmental proceeding against him, he would be given an opportunity to raise all issues, especially his rebuttal of the allegation of using an invalid degree, or incorrect experience Page No.# 7/7 certificate along with the afore-noted ground of no statute with respect to the service conditions of the employees of the Universities having been framed. 16. The choice of the appellant in not pressing for his consideration for being appointed as Registrar is based on his own assessment of his candidature. However, under no circumstances, shall he be precluded to present his cause before the disciplinary authority with respect to the charges levelled against. 17. Under the circumstances, we dismiss both the appeals with a direction that the relevant statute ought to be framed by the Executive Council of the University and incorporated in the Act and provide reasonable and fair opportunity to the appellant to present his cause. In case the appellant files a representation to review or rescind the order of suspension, in view of the possibility of it continuing for a longer time, that prayer shall also be considered by the authority in its correct perspective. 18. With the afore-noted direction and observations, both the appeals stand disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant