User:Unfortunate India/sandbox

From- 								Date: 16-12-13 Sayeed Ahmed Earlier working as Store Keeper Asstt. (afterwards designated as Store-Asstt). Regional Agril. Res. Station (outstation of the university) Titabar, Jorhat. And His communication and Home Address Na-Ali Tini-Ali, P.O. Titabar. Dist-Jorhat (Assam). Mobile No.: 9957180253.

To, The Vice-President of India, New-Delhi. Sub.: Humble Appeal  for taking your necessary action as prayed for in the letter addressed to the Hon'ble President of India dated 10-12-13 already sent.

In the Matter of (1) 	Appeal for determining some substantial questions of law of general importance and public interest involved in the Second Appeal No 164/97 preferred by The Authority of Assam Agril. University, Jorhat. (2) 	Appeal for declaring the order of Release under Memo No. AAU/RARS/TTB/CS/89-90/926-31 Dtd-24.7.89 passed and issued under signature of the then Chief Scientist, Regional Agril, Res. Station, Titabar is malafied, ill motivated and against the principles and rules of normal and formal procedure of issue of Release Order as followed by the Authority of Assam Agril, University, Jorhat as such 	it is illegal and ultra vires of the rules of the University therefore cannot be given effect to. (3) 	Appeal for for declaring the subsequent Transfer Order passed and issued after Gauhati High Court’s is Judgement and Order Dtd 13-3-2002 under Memo No. A.A.U/RC/L-001/2003/36268 Dtd-10-4-2003 and the Termination order under Memo No. AAU/RG/RES/P-462(Pt)/2005/5666-72 Dtd-03-8-2005 passed and issued under the signature of the then Registrar, Assam Agril. University are malafied, ill motivated and against the Rules of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964 as such these are illegal and cannot be acted upon and should be set aside. Respected Sir, The Petitioner named above most respectfully states as follows:- 1. 	The Petitioner is an employee under the Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat and was appointed as Store Keeper Assistant (now designated as Store Assistant) in Rice Research scheme and was posted at Regional Agricultural Research Station, Titabar in 1977 and since then he has been discharging as such his duties till 1989 as Store Keeper Assistant(Res) whose duty is strictly specifie in nature and he was in charge of stock and store sections except 'B' experimental farm. 2. 	That the Assam Agricultural University is a autonomous body and also a body corporate for providing better facilities for education in agriculture and allied sciences and in particular for the development of agriculture and the matter connected therewith the Hon’ble V.C the Registrar the Chief Scientist  are the employees working under Assam Agril University and mainly responsible for the management, administration and etc of the same. 3. 	That as per the Assam Agril University Act, 1968, the Vice Chancellor is the Principal Executive and Academic officer of the University and Ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Management and of the Academic Council. He shall exercise general control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the University. 4.	That in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Management of the University vide its meeting held on 3-10-83 against Agenda item No. 27 the Board considered that some incentive are necessary for the staff who are placed at the outstations and decided in principle to grant the outstation allowance at the rate of 20% of the basic pay or 250/- p.m. whichever is less w.e.f 1-10-83 to the employees of the University who stays it the outstations either in the station campus itself or a radius of 3 k.ms of the stations. Accordingly the matter was intimated to all controlling officers with a request to submit concrete proposal covering also financial involvement required for implementation of the decision. 5.	That in the meantime in 1985, the employees of the Outstations forming an Association with the style and designation " All Outstation Employees Association, A.A.U" had been pressing to give the outstation allowance by restoring to agitational paths till 1988. 6. 	That after several discussions in the Boards, at last finally the Board in its meeting held on 22-2-88 against Agenda item No. 8 	(1), reconsidering the said outstation allowance decided to grant 18 benefits to the outstation employees except the employees of Jorhat and Khanapar main campus and 	Shillongon outstation. 7. 	That in pursuance of the said decision of the Board, the  Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor passed and issued the order under Memo No. A.A.U/R-1141/87-88/30937-88/Dtd-05-3-88 with copies to all concerned. 8. 	That the clause No.1 of the said Memo Dtd -5-3-88 is as follows: 1. Rent free quarter to the outstation officers, teachers and other employees residing in the University quarters is granted with effect from 1-4-88. The benefits shall be terminated automatically as soon as the employees cease to serve the outstation to their transfer and other reasons. 9. 	That earlier the rent free quarter was not granted to said employees. Later on in stead of outstation allowance, the said rent free quarter is granted. But at the same time if additional house rent is not granted to the employees residing in a radius of 3 k.ms of the outstations, they will not be benefited instead of outstation allowance and hence it is apparent discrimination between employees residing in quarter and in a radius of 3 k.ms of the stations which involve a public interest. 10.	 That due to individual as well as public interest the petitioner being not satisfied the petitioner under the Registrar that the plaintiff instituted a declaratory suit bearing No. T.S. 47/88 together with an injunction petition bearing Mis. Case.No.-____/88 in the Court of Munsiff No. II, Jorhat, praying additional house rent etc. and the same was withdrawn with permission to refile and due to the long intervention of Puja vacation, the Petitioner had to wait for some time to refile and the defendant No. 2 grabbed the opportunity and vindictively issued an order transferring the plaintiff to North Lakhimpur in the same capacity and rank vide Memo No. AAU/R-1161 (PT) /88-89/26902-09 Dtd-25-11-88 under the signature of the Registrar ultimately the A.A.U Authority had stopped the said facility of Rent free quarter. 11. 	But He was transferred to North-Lakhimpur at the same rank vide Memo No. AAU/R-1161(Pt)/88-89/26902/09 Dtd-25-11-88 violating the clause No. 8 and 9 of the said order under Memo No. AAU/R-1141/87-88/30937-88/Dtd-05-3-88. Those Clauses are as follows: Clause No.8-Transfer/rotation of teachers will be made if it is in the interest of the University work. Clause No.9- Appointment and posting of Non-teaching posts 	at the entry point such as Typist, L.D.A etc. and Acctts Asstt. will be made at their home district as far as Practicable if does not hamper the University interest and subject to availability 	of vacancy position. 12. 	That he is clearly a non-teaching member of the staff and as such required no transfer as provided under clause No.8 of the said Memo Dtd-5-3-88. Further, I am protected under Clause No.9 of the said Memo Dtd-05-3-88 where in he is a Store Asstt. appointed at the entry point under the category of L.D.A, working in his home district without hampering the University interest and subject to availability of vacancy petition. 13.	 Furthermore, if any employee of non-teaching post is appointed in his home district and after some months or years if he is transferred at the same rank to outside his home district and then the applicability of the said clause No.8 and 9 will be anfractuous and it will be deemed to be violation of the decision of the Board of Management A.A.U under the said Clause No. 8 & 9. 14. 	No doubt, the appointment and posting of Non-teaching posts is transferable within the jurisdiction of the University as per 	A.A.U rule. But with effect from 1988 on the basis of the said Clause No.8 & 9, the appointment and posting of non-teaching posts at the entry point are not transferable if it does not hamper the University interest but after promotion it will be transferable. 15. 	That is why, the applicability and validity of the said Clause No. 8 & 9 are still in force to all categories of non-teaching posts at the entry point including him which involves the public interest as a whole. 16. 	That as for the interest and benefit of Non-Teaching employee in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Management othe University vide its meeting held on 22-02 -88 against A.I No 8 (I), the then Vice-Chancellor, A.A.U was pleased to issue the order under the said MemoDtd-05-03-88 in which the said clause No. 8 & 9 have been included hence, the A.A.U Authority must follow the decisions/Clauses in the said order Dtd-05-03-88. 17. 	That in spite of aforesaid grounds against Transfer why I was transferred at the same rank as L.D.A violating the decision of the Board of Management A.A.U under Clause No. 8 & 9 of the order vide the aforesaid Memo Dtd-05-3-88 to North Lakhimpur vide the 	order under the aforesaid Memo Dtd-25-11-88 for which legal points a raised regarding applicability and validity of the said order Dtd -5-3-88 and regarding issuing of such impugned transfer order Dtd25-11-88 involve substantial question of law. 18. 	That I after immediately receiving the said alleged transfer order submitted an Appeal cum Representation addressing to the then Registrar of the University Dtd- 6-12-88 with copies to all concerned including the then Chief Scientist (Dr. Arun Kumar Pathak) and a copy which was personally handed over to then Chief Scientist Regional Agril Res. Station on 06-12-88 with the request to recommend/forward the same to the Authority concerned fordoing the needful as prayed for, but the said Appeal cum Representation instead of taking any cognizance of it was returned the same through Administrative Officer orally without/ before keeping any record officially as it were hence the then Chief 	Scientist Compelled him to approach directly the Court of Law for redressal of his grievances for which legal point arised in this para involve a substantial question of law regarding not-forwarding his said Appeal cum Representation to the higher Authority for doing the needful as, if an employee is not allowed to place his grievances before the Authority, then there is no alternative way except resorting to the court. 19. 	That though the Petitioner position was placed at Sl.No 30 of gradation/seniority list, his claim for promotion as the senior most incumbent was ignored and promotion has been granted to incumbents listed from 31 to 39 thereby superseding the prior claim of the plaintiff vide Memo No. AAU/R-24/ESTT/88-89/3 Dtd-29-11-88 under the Signature of the Registrar without/ before assigning/disclosing any ground /grounds, reason/reasons for such unjustified super session and the Authority nowhere and never intimated any ground of adverse service record super session has been vindictive and malafied in nature and the orders of said promotion of 9 juniors by super session were published only 4 days after the order of transferring the plaintiff was given effect to. Also, the said A.C.R. was not obtained by the Evolution Committed for promotion till the date of promotion order. 20. 	That the Petitioner being highly aggrieved at the said order and not being satisfied at the malafied, ill motivated action of the Authority which is against the principles enunciated in item of the Board's decision under Memo. No. AAU/R/1141/87-88/30, 939-80 Dtd. 5-3-88 and as such illegal and ultravires of the decision of the Board of Management as regards the order of transfer, instituted a declaratory suit bearing T.S. 100/88 in the court of Munsiff, Jorhat on 13-12-88 together with an injunction petition bearing Mis.No. 99/88 for declaration as such above and for perpetual injunction. But the matter pertaining to release did not arise on 13-12-88. Cause of action to the issue of release arose much later i.c. on 24-7-89. 21. 	That the learned court was pleased to admit the suit, to issue notice to the O.P.S. to show cause and to order for maintaining station quo vide order Dtd-13-12-88 but by order Dtd-25-3-89 the learned Munsiff was pleased to dismiss the injunction petition and vacated the status quo order and the T.S. 100/88 was dismissed on default on 10-4-90 but it	has been revived on 30-8-90. 22.	 That the Petitioner being highly aggrieved and not satisfied with the order of disposal of Mis. C. No. 99/88 preferred an appeal in the court of learned Assistant district Judge, Jorhat, which was numbered Mis 	(A) No. 5-89 and the appellate court has opined vide judgement and order dated 21-7-89 that the transfer order issued to the plaintiff has suffered from malafied prime facie but the dismissed the appeal for want of sanction. It was also opined by the court that the aggrieved party might seek remedy for violation of Fundamental Rights under 	Prerogative writs of the constitution of India. 23. 	That being aggrieved by the orders aforementioned the petitioner preferred a revisional application in the Gauhati High Court (Civil Provisional Jurisdiction) and the Gauhati High Court by admitting it under Civil Revision No. 375/89 ordered on 8-9-89 for maintaining 	'Status quo' as prevailing on date on the 'transfer order'. The said Civil Revisional No.375/89 was dismissed on default on 23-12-92 it had been revived on 7-9-93 and again was dismissed on default on 28-2-94. 24. 	Even at the time of pending the suit No. 98/88 for house rent filed by the Petitioner, the then Chief Scientist (Dr. Arun Kumar Pathak) vindictively informed the Comptroller A.A.U vide the Letter A.A.U /RARS/TTB/CS/88-89/4260/Dtd-6-10-88 that as per Govt. Rule, employees who are staying their own house at their own accord may not be entitled for the house rent allowance subject to availability of department quarter whereas the said Chief Scientist instead of residing in station campus Titabar though quarter were available went from Jorhat to Titabar for duty using office vehicle and had drawn house rent allowance. 25. 	Now that the circumstance leading to the leading to the subject matter of this suit i.e. the illegal order of the Chief Scientist (C.S) for release of the petitioner is a long chain of indirect but ill motivated, suppressive and oppressive measures adopted by the C.S. either to remove the petitioner from the post of Store Keeper Assistant (R) R.A.R.S. Titabar or to get the post of Store Keeper Assistant (R) R.A.R.S. Titabar abolished, a few of which are listed below. (a) U/O vide Memo No. AAU/RARS/TTB/86-87/1618-23 Dtd. 18-12-86 and office order vide Memo No. AAU/RARS/TTB/CS/88-89/4055-4070 dtd. 15-9-88 the petitioner has been discharging his duties of stock and store maintenance of Research scheme but the C.S. has been trying systematically in a planned manner and with motive to snatch away the responsibilities entrusted with him as store keeper assistant by the authority. (b) That in the month of October, 1988 the C.S. took away the responsibility of maintenance of the history sheet/stock and store of vehicles, jeep, bus etc. maintained from the Research budget from the plaintiff as a sequil to plaintiff putting up objection in the note sheet No.217 of file No. S.K.A-17 (A) about the irregularity of two bills of M/S Ranjit Automobile Engineering works, A.T. Road, Jorhat dtd. 31-8-88 Nos. 57 and 58 amounting to Rs. 423/- Rs. 422/- respectively. (C ) In April/May 1989 Bond paper costing about Rs. 2500/- was purchased from M/S O.R. Enterprise, Borbheta, Jorhat. As the supplier submitted 7 or 8 bills against the supply order, the file was sent with note sheet mentioning the irregularity to the C.S. through the administrative officer (A.O). The file has never been sent back to the dealing assistant i.e. the petitioner till the date of the issue of the impugned release order. This holding back of the file was done as another step towards taking away powers, functions and responsibilities of the petitioner as store keeper Asstt. (R) RARS, Titabar. (d) In April 1988 a stationery stock book was put in the table of the C.S. for initials. The C.S. did not return the stock book and it is still in his custody. (e) Following usual procedure of placing purchase order for purchase of fertiliser for the season a purchase requisition was submitted on 13-3-89. Ignoring the requisition the C.S. without the knowledge of the store keeper Asstt (plaintiff) placed after 3 months on 30-6-89 (season already passed) an order for Treble the quantity required for a season and instructed through A.O. verbally the plaintiff to record the receipt. The petitioner on receiving the copy of the purchased order on 4-7-89 found to be highly irregular and verbally apprised the C.S. of this irregularity. As the C.S. took no interest the petitioner submitted written objection on 5-7-89 and again on 7-7-89 Instead of looking into the objections the C.S. called the plaintiff to his (C.S) room on 8-7-89 and with intimidating words threatened him in presence of the other employees. The petitioner to keep `himself safe sent the letter dated 7-7-89 refused by the C.S. again on 8-7-89 to the C.S. by registered post. This time the C.S. took away the responsibility of fertilizer stock work from the him and entrusted it to another assistant of the office. The respective stock is still with him. (f) The C.S. without reason and with vindictiveness, has kept the petitioner medical bills amounting to Rs. 4460/- pending and unprocessed. Undisbursed since 1988. (g) That the C.S. with a vindictive attitude refused to receive any letter submitted by the petitioner and instructed the receipt assistant of the R.A.R.S., Titabar not to acknowledge the receipt of any letter etc. submitted by him , addressed to the C.S. or to the higher authorities since 4/5 months back from the date of issue of the impugned release order, as a result of which the plaintiff has to take recourse to sending them, either by either by ‘certificate of posting’ or by ‘registered post’. (h) That the C.S. vindictively took away the responsibility of maintaining stock register of diesel purchased for and used in vehicles and tractors etc. of the RARS, Titabar from the petitioner without information to the plaintiff although the stock book is still with him. (i) That as usual the plaintiff had been sub-matting requisition for purchase of cattle feed every month for the year 1989 but the does not know if any cattle feed was purchased for the year. The petitioner as store keeper Asstt. Neither received any stock against these requisitions for the year nor does he know if the charge of stock maintenance was entrusted with some other employee. (j) That the C.S. vindictively removed the master roll worker attached to the store for assisting the store keeper assistant (R) i.e. the petitioner from the store in order to deprive the plaintiff if from the assistance which he had been getting for about 7 years. 26. 	Now that the Chief Scientist (C.S) Regional Agricultural Research Station. Titabar vide order under Memo No. AAU/RARS/TTB/C.S/89-90/926-31 dtd. 24-7-89 issued another of release of the plaintiff from the station. W.e.f. 24-7-89 (4-30 p.m.) immediately after and grabbing the opportunity of receiving letters No. AAU/R/Legal/89-90/ 6545-47 dtd- 22-7-89 from the Register. A.A.U Jorhat and No. AAA/R-1161/(H) /88-89/26902-89 dtd. 23-11-88. The Letters from the Registrar. AAU dated dated 22-7-89 and the order of the C.S. dated 24-7-89 noted in the para were handed over to the plaintiff on 24-7-89 Dtd. 12.45 p.m. in two separate an closed envelops. 27.	That it is evident, the Registrar , A.A.U, Jorhat vide his letter No. AAU/R/Legal/89-90/6545-47 dtd. 22-7-89 noted above directed the C.S. RARS, Titabar, simply to make suitable arrangement for taking over charge from the from the plaintiff and then to release and the other letter quoted t.e. No. AAU/R/1161/ (H)/88-89/26902-89 dtd. 23-11-88 is nowhere in existence. The letter No. AA/RARS/TTB/C.S/89-90/1025 dtd. 2-8-89 from C.S. to the plaintiff, too reveals that the plaintiff was release already, although at the name time it directed the petitioner hand over charge. 28.	That on receiving the judgement and order of the additional dist. Judge, Jorhat on 21-7-89 the plaintiff had sent an information immediately to the Registrar, AAU, Jorhat stating that the (plaintiff) was would prefer an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment but the C.S. withhold the said letter of information and returned it to the plaintiff on 24-7-89 just before the issue of the impugned release order. 29.	That the petitioner on receiving the impugned release order on 24-7-89 at 12.45 p.m. in a closed envelop and also the letter from the Registrar, AAU, in another envelop being very much mentally depressed and disturbed applied for half day C.L. for the day and C.L. for 25-7-89 and submitted a petition dtd. 25-7-89 praying for time to hand over charge. All these applications and petitioner were returned to the plaintiff instead of forwarding them to higher authorities. The petitioner had to send these applications to Chief Scientist under certificate of posting on 26-7-89 on and from 27-7-89 the plaintiff was not allowed to sign in the attendance register. But the plaintiff attended office as usual till 16-8-89. He discontinued attendance on and from 17-8-89 as verbally instructed by the Chief Scientist and A.O. on 16-8-89 not to come to the office. The plaintiff informed the Registrar, AAU by a letter dtd. 17-8-89 with copies to all concerned stating the reason for non attendance of duties. 30.	That the petitioner although being prevented from signing attendance register, attended office as usual and on 31-7-89 after the plaintiff’s arrival the Chief Scientist got the main gates of the office building locked and with on intimidation verbally asked the plaintiff to handover charge to the committee already formed without intimation to the plaintiff. In the meantime a police officer arrived who declined to take over charge by force in face of the applications and petitions already submitted by the plaintiff to higher authorities. The plaintiff came to know afterwards that the Chief Scientist invited the O.C., Titabar P.S. vide letter No. AAU/RARS/T/89-90/995 dtd. 29-7-89. Now over and above these harassments, ill motivated and illegal actions, the C.S. has held up the plaintiff’s pay and allowances since 25-7-89 although the plaintiff is still an employee of the RARS, Titabar as his letters dated 24-7-89, 25-7-89 and 2-2-90 have been forwarded by the  C.S. to higher authorities although the impugned release maintaining status was still in force w.e.f. 8-9-89. This non receipt of pay and allowances for over a year, his seriously affected economically the plaintiff, already an economically hard perused employee and his family. 31.	The petitioner after receiving the ‘status quo’ order from high Court on 8-9-89 as advised by the counsel submitted petitions for allowing him to attend office and to draw his pay and allowances to the Registrar, AAU & C.S. on 12-9-89, 4-11-89, 15-11-89, 21-9-89 to which of either there was no reply or the reply was unsatisfactory. 32.	Now, it is abundantly clear that the Chief Scientist issued the order of Release motivatedly and calculatively on 24-7-89 before handing charge. (a) In violation of the direction of the Registrar, A.A.U, Jorhat given vide his Letter No. AAU/R/Lehal/89-90/6545-47 dtd-22-7-89 in which the Chief Scientist, RARS, Titabar, was directed first to make suitable arrangement for taking and handling over of charge and them to 	release. As a rule "Direction" proceeds final order. But in the petitioner’s case "direction" and final order have been issued in a composite single order in violation of rules and procedure. (b) In violation of the usual, formal and normal procedure of handing over and taking of charge in the form (scheduled) and realization section of outstanding dues etc. from the person transferred and then to release. There can be no question of handing over charge from an incumbent 	who is released. There can be no claim over a person or object released. (c)The said release order Dtd-24-7-89 was issued not with reference to 	the Transfer order Dtd-25-11-88 given the Petitioner but issued with 	reference the transfer order Dtd-23-11-88 which is not existence. The file nos. issue Nos. and dates of the said two transfer orders were 	completely different with each others. (d) This was a fraud but not advertent error as the said Release Order was not amended though informed at that time and afterwards several times to the Authority. (e) Even the Authority was failed to furnish the said transfer order Dtd-23-11-88 or the Release Order after amendment and information whether the said the transfer orders can be said to be the same transfer order as sought for under R.T.I Act, 2005. The R.T.I Application Dtd-6-9-2013 submitted in continuation R.T.I Application Dtd-5-3-2013 and Dtd-5-1-2013 which are self explanatory. Also Deptt. of Legal Affairs, Implementation cell vide the Letter Dtd-29-10-13 has requested Registrar, A.A.U to take action in this case. 33.	 That the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Registrar, A.AU, 	Jorhat on 4-9-89 praying for setting aside the release order issued on 24-7-89 by Chief Scientist as it was illegal and not maintainable. 34. 	That the petitioner submitted a petition in the form of an appeal cum notice for sanction of the Board of Management on 12-2-90 and also prayed for withdrawal of the impugned order of release and to allow the petitioner to attend to his duties and to release his pay and allowances on or before 28-2-90 and for legal action. Against the Chief Scientist if no action is taken on or before 28-2-90 Copies of the petition have been submitted to the Chancellor, Members of BOM,D.R., AAU and Chief Scientist, RARS, Titabar for necessary action. But the BOM. remains silent. 35. 	From the aforesaid statements from para .......... to ........... para of this 	petition, it is crystal clear that the said Release Order was issued on Bogus Transfer Order with vindictive attitude hence the petitioner cannot said to be released formally and legally as such the said release order is base less, malafied, ill motivated, irregular and illegal and not sustainable both in facts and law and it cannot be acted upon. 36.	 That, therefore, impugned transfer order was challenged in the Court of Munsiff No 1.Jorhat in T.S.No/00/88/on 13-12-88 and in pursuance of the applicability of the said Clause No 8 & 9 of the Order under aforesaid Memo Dtd-05-3-88,the Learned Munsiff Court, Jorhat had passed Judgment and order in 18-2-95 as follows. 37. That then the Authority had preferred an Appeal on 27-3-95 in the Asstt Dist Judge Court, Jorhat against the said Judgment of the Munsiff Court. But the said Judgment and decree were up held by the Asstt Dist Judge Court on 27-5-97 with the same relief's as granted by the Court below. But still the Petitoner was not allowed to resume in his duties violating the Human Right which involves a substantial question of Law. Even The Hon'ble Justice of the Guwahati High Court has stated in the para 18 of the Judgement and Order Dtd-13-03-2002 as follows : "18, Before parting he would however like to observe that the impugned order of transfer had been in the year 1988 and in between more than 12 years hve passed. Mr Gayan, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff (Sayeed Ahmed)have submitted that pursuant to the order of statusquo dated 8-9-89 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No 375/89.his client had reported for duty at Titabor on several occasions but he was not allowed to join." 38. That the Petitioner beg to state that Sri Kamaleswar Phukan, Asst. Registrar of the Assam Agril. University. Jorhat on behalf of the appellant No. 2 i.e. Registrar of the A.A.U has preferred a second appeal before the Hon'ble Court challenging the judgment and order Dtd. 27.5.97 passed by the Appellate Court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior) Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 4/95 arising out of Judgment and Decree Dtd. 18.2.95 passed in T.S No. 100/88. 39. The said Asstt. Registrar has been authorized by the appellant No. 2 only to swear affidavit and to prefer Second Appeal as made statements in his affidavit. 40. The said Asstt. Registrar has not been authorized by other appellants i.e. The Vice-Chancellor, A.A.U., Jorhat and the Chief Scientist RARS, Titabar to swear affidavit and to prefer the Appeal. 41. That the said Asstt. Registrar does not show the Vice-Chancellor as appellant both in the said Application for condoning and the Memorandum of Appeal in the SA No. 164/97 and he has preferred the second appeal ignoring the Supreme Authority i.e. the Vice-Chancellor of the University and without according any consent / approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. 42. The copy of the order dated 21/11/97 in the SA No. 164/97 under signature of the Hon'ble Justice J.N Sarma along with condoning petition and the Memorandum of Appeal etc. were issued on 25-05-2001 after three and half years from passing the order dated 21/11/97. 43. The said order dated: 21/11/97 sent to the respondent on 29/05/2001 along with Memorandum of Appeal etc. were received on 02/06/2001 by the Petitioner. 44. That information regarding approval of the Vice-Chancellor for filing the S.A. No. 164/97, non-joinder of parties, submission of false statements misleading the Hon'ble High Court, intentional delay before and after preferring the Second Appeal making undue harassment to the Petitioner have been sought for at Sl. No. 9 to 14 in his R.T.I. Application dated: 29/10/13. But the A.A.U. Authority have failed to furnish the same till now hence legal points arised in the above para against validity of preferring the Second Appeal No. 164/67 involve a substantial question of law. 45. As stated already, the Petitioner as outstation employee had proceeded to the Court of Law due to deprivations of benefits granted under Clause No. 8 & 9 of the said Memo dated: 05/03/88 in stead of outstation allowance to be granted not only his individual interest but also public interest are involved in the said issue hence if the aforesaid subsequent questions of law are not determined by the Hon'ble President through Commission. Then the said Memo dated: 05/03/88 will be infractuous in consequence of which the respective employees of the outstations will be deprived of such benefits forever as granted in stead of outstation allowance. Also agitation launched for the whole life of the Petitioner who had been suffered beyond imagine for the cause of public interest will go in vain. So, under these circumstances the Hon'ble Court will be pleased to realize the said Public Issue with humanitarian attitude and determine the said substantial questions of law as prayed for. 46. Even Sjt Kamaleswar Phukon, the then Asstt. Registrar ,A.A.U. on behalf of the Appellants. i.e. (i)	Assam Agril .University (ii)The then Registrar (iii)the then Chief Scientist(Dr Arun Kumar Pathok),Regional Agril. Res. Station ,Titabor had made statement in the ground (v)(page4,)of the Appeal Memo submitted through the Learned Counsel for the University to the Guwahati High Court in 1997 and Second Appeal No164/97 which are as follows: "(v) For that the Plaintiff Respondent was earlier posted as Store-keeper Asstt. and subsequently he has been promoted to the post of Store-keeper in the year 1982 and was posted at Titabor in the same office at Regional Agril. Res. Station and therefore ,even the Hon'ble Court finds the Memorandum Dtd-05-3-88 is applicable since the plaintiff is appointed as an Asstt. Store-keeper at the entry point therefore, there had not been any violation of clause 9 of the said memorandum and as such it involves a substantial questions of law in the Appeal." 47. That from the aforesaid statement (Para-46)it is clear that the Petitioner was transferred in 1988 after promotion ,hence the then Asstt. Registrar (G) admitted that the said Clause No 8 & 9 shall not be applicable since He was appointed as Store-Keeper Asstt. at the entry point but he was transferred after promotion. But practically the Petitioner was transferred  as L.D.A., the rank of which is equivalent to the rank of Store-keeper Asstt at the entry point but not after the promotion said to be made ,therefore, there had been Violation of Clause No 8 & 9 of the said Memo.Dtd-05-03-88. That is why the said clause no. 8 & 9 shall be applicable to him. 48. He came to know the said promotion only from the said Memo of Appeal and the said promotion order said to be made and issued in 1982 has never been handed over to him. Also he had never receive any transfer order as Store-keeper after promotion as stated in the said Memo of Appeal .So in this para a legal points arised regarding issuing of the said Transfer Order Dtd-25-11-88 as L.D.A. instead of Store-keeper hence not issuing and not handing over the order of the promotion said to be made involve a substantial question of Law. 49.	That in the meantime ,the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court had delivered the Judgment of the S.A.No./64/97 in the para -19 of the Judgment and Order Dtd-13-3-2002 as follows: The suit was filed in the year 1988 and was decreed in the year 1995.The Appeal filed by the appellants defendants was also dismissed in the year 1997 affirming the decree. Almost five(5) years have elapsed since then. It can not be said in facts and circumstances of the present case that the respondent plaintiff had not been litigating bonafied for a cause which he considers to be genuine. He can not be said to be wholly responsible for the delay in disposal of the proceedings. He is admittedly an employee belonging to grade III for the service under the University. In this circumstances this Court while setting aside the judgment and dedree. of the learned lower appellate Court consider it fit and proper to direct the appellants-defendants to allow him to continue in service and grant him the service benefits as would be admissible to him that the services of the respondent-plaintiff had not been in the meantime terminated and he was still in service. 50. That on the basis of the statement of the then Asstt. Registrar (G) as stated in the para -46 of this Petition ,The Hon'ble High Court set aside the Judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court on this reason that the clause No.8 & 9 of the said Memo Dtd-05-3-88 will not be applicable in case of Transfer after promotion but granted continuance of Service with Service benefit. 51. That in spite of two times decree in the lower Appellate Court, the Petitioner was not allowed to join. Even ,the Hon'ble the High Court stated in the para -18 of the Judgment and Order Dtd-13-3-2002 that the impugned order of transfer had been passed in the year 1988 and in between more than 12 years ,he had reported for duty at Titabor on several occasions but he was not allowed to join. 52.That his period of absence cannot be an unauthorized one hence the Hon'ble High Court stated in the para 19 of the said Judgment that he cannot be said to be wholly responsible for the delay in disposal of the proceedings. He is admittedly an employee belonging to grade -III of the service under the University. In this circumstances, this Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court consider it fit and proper to direct the University to allow him to continue in service and grant him service benefits as would be admissible to him as his services had not been terminated in the meantime .It is therefore expected of the University to pass appropriate orders in this regard as early as possible. 53. Therefore, in pursuance of the said Judgment and Order Dtd-13-3-2002, the question of his absent period ,to initial proceedings regarding his absent period, constitution of Enquiry Committee to enquire changes against him, appearance in the said Committee, imposing penalties etc does not arise. 54. During this long period of 13 years, he had not been allowed to resume to his duties as well as he had not faced any disciplinary action hence validity of withholding of his pay or subsistence allowance involves a substantial question of law. 55. That in terms of the said Judgment and order Dtd-13-3-2002,THe Chairman of the Board of Management A.A.U. cum the Hon'ble Vice -Chancellor of the University had been prayed in his said Representation Dtd-25-11-2002 to give promotional benefits w.e.f.1982 and to resume in his duties in the post of further promotion due in the meantime. 56. That with reference to his said Representation Dtd-25-11-2002, no order has been passed and issued to him granting continuance in his service and promotional and other service benefits w.e.f.1982 though he did not objected his transfer hence R.T.I. Application Dtd-07-4-2013 regarding processing of and action taken on his said Representation Dtd-25-11-2002 but no response from the end of the University which involve a substantial question of law in this case. 57. The Petitioner beg to inform the Hon'ble High Court that in receipt of the said Order under Memo No. AAU/RG/L-001/2003/362-68, dated: 10-04-2003, he submitted the Appeal Petition, dated: 15/04/2003 the contents of which are as follows: I. The transfer will remain in force. II. As the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court delivering the Judgment, dated: 13/03/2002 considered fit and proper to direct the then A.A.U. Authority / Appellant to allow him / Respondent to continue in service and grant him service benefits as admissible him as his service had not been in the mean time terminated and he was still in service hence the question of his absent period could not be arised and his absence was not unauthorized one. III. As the then Asstt. Registrar (Sjt. Kamalesh Phukan) preferred the 2nd Appeal (S.A. No/ 64/97) before Guwahati High Court and stated in ground (V) of the Appeal Memo (Page No. 4) that the Petitioner was earlier posted as Store Keeper Asstt. (L.D.A. Rank) and subsequently he had been promoted to the post of Store Keeper (UDA Rank) in the year 1982 and was posted in the same office at Regional Agril. Res. Station, Titabar hence the question of Transfer at the same rank (L.D.A. Rank) could never be arised. IV. The Transfer Order under Memo No. AAU/R-1161 (H)/88-89/26902-89/ Dated: 23/11/88 quoted in the Release Order issued by the then Chief Scientist (Dr. Arun Kumar Pathak) under Memo No. AAU/RARS/TTB/CS/89-90/9263, Dated: 24/07/89 in not in existence and the said Transfer Order is neither in the hand of the University nor in his hand. V. In spite of his request at that time, the said Release Order was not amended. VI. That is why, he stated that the said Release dated: 24/07/89 was baseless, void and never could be Legal hence he asked the Authority to issue a fresh Release Order for reporting duty as the Transfer Order under Memo No. AAU/R-1161 (pt)/88-89/26902-09, dated: 25/11/88 which was given to him had not been quoted in the said Release Order dated: 24/07/88 as per rule. Later on the Authority had been requested under R.T.I. Act, 2005 either to furnish the said Transfer Order dated: 23/11/88 or to furnish the Release Order after amendment. But the Authority have failed to furnish the same till now. VII. Lastly, he informed the then Registrar in the said Petition dated: 15/04/2003 regarding his claim of promotion vide his petition dated: 25/11/2002 which is self explanatory. 58. From the aforesaid statements, it is clear that in terms of the said High Court's Judgment and Order, dated: 13/03/2002 he was not allowed to continue in service with service benefits. In stead, the then A.A.U. Authority mentioned in the said Order dated: 10-04-2003 to initiate proceedings against him for the period of absence as if the same was unauthorized one, also imposed penalties in the said order dated: 10-04-2003 and directed him to report for duty with the said impugned Release Order for which legal points arised regarding validity of issuing the said Order dated: 10-04-2003, to initial proceedings, imposing penalties mentioned in the Order involve a substantial question of law. 59. Due to the aforesaid discrepancies in case of non continuity of his service, the said impugned Release Order, promotion etc. he had not complied with the Order dated: 10/04/2003 and refrained from joining in his service by submitting the said Representation dated: 15/04/2003 which cannot amount to willful disobedience of the order of the A.A.U. Authority but respectful honour to the said High court's Judgment & Order. But he did not object the transfer with service benefits as directed. That is why, in receipt of the show cause Notice dated: 07-06-2003, he informed the then Registrar vide his Letter dated: 10-06-2003 that cited Memo on the subject is unsustainable both eon facts and in law and cannot be acted upon and he stoutly denied the same in terms of the Judgment as passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court on 13/03/2002, ( S.A. No. 164/97) and in terms of the said Representation dated: 15-04-03 as submitted on the aforesaid valid and justifiable grounds enclosing the Letter from Prime Minister's Office under Memo No. 13/03/2003-PMP-3/425317, dated: 09/05/2003 regarding interference on his service matter. Therefore, as stated by the then Registrar in the said notice dated: 07/06/2003, it is not true that the said Representation was submitted on some grounds which bear no merit for consideration. 60. Even in receipt of his Letter dated: 05/05/2003 with which the said Representation dated: 15/04/2003 was enclosed, due to having valid and justifiable grounds, the then Hon'ble President of India (Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam) sent the same to the Indian council of Agril. Res. through the Deptt. of Agril. Res. & Education, New Delhi vide P1/A-38791, dated: 21/05/03 which had been kept pending without taking any action for more than 9 years. Now in receipt of his R.T.I. Application, dated: 05-09-2012, the Indian Council of Agril. Res., New Delhi sent the same vide Letter No. F. No. 06-18/2010 of P (Edn.) Dated; 20-09-2012 to the Registrar, A.A.U. for providing information to him under intimation to the Education Divn. of I.C.A.R. In spite of the direction of the Hon'ble President of India, the A.A.U. Authority has not taken any action on the said Representation dated: 15/04/2003. 61. The Petitioner beg to submit his some previous communications for your clarification. On the basis of the said verdict of the High Court and discrepancies of the said Order dated: 10-04-2003 as stated above. 62. That his service matter has been taken up by both the Hon'ble President and the Prime Minister of India and several communications have been made w.e.f. 2003 for which various Indexes' of Letters received from -the Deptt of Agril. Res. Education, New-Delhi are self explanatory. Afterwards, his service matter had been redressed by the Indian Council of Agril. Res. as directed by the then President and Prime Minister of India through the Secretary, Agril. Res. & Education Deptt, New-Delhi. In this connection he has drawn to kind attention of the Court that as informed by Sunita Davale, the Enquiry Director, Ministry of Agril. Res & Education Deptt., New-Delhi, on 04-03-2004 (Flag-N) two Letters 13-03-2004/PMP-3/425138 Dtd-16-02-04 and P.M.O. UO No. 125/10/C/1/2004-ES-2/Dtd-23-02-2004 received from Prime Minister's  Office had been forwarded to the Chief Public Relation Officer, I.C.A.R to take appropriate action and requested ICAR to send back the same within 10-03-04. Accordingly, having redressed his service matter, Indian Council of Agril. Res. sent back the said two Letters along with his Petition to the Deptt. of Agril. Res. & Education, Govt. of India as Directed earlier. Then in receipt ,'of the same from ICAR, Mr. D.K. Chhatwal, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, A.R.E. New-Delhi, had conveyed the Direction with the enclosures to Authority of Assam Agril. University for appropriate action requesting to send a suitable reply to him under intimation to this Deptt. vide F. . 30-10/2004/ Estt. Dtd-25th March, 2004 and the Reminder Dtd-25-04-2004 (Flag-P) had been served. Also two letters from the Hon'ble President of India and Five Letters from the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India had been sent to the A.A.U. Authority by the Deptt. of Agril. Res. Education vide Letters Dtd-25-04-2005 and Dtd-10-11-2005 respectively. But the A.A.U. Authority had not responded to the letters of Prime Minister's Office and the President Secretariat stated in this para as in spite of his R.T.I. Application dated: 04/01/13 submitted in continuation his R.T.I. Applications Dated: 27-11-12 and Dated: 04-09-2012 regarding furnishing information of taking action on the said Letters along with Xerox Copies of the respondent letters and the respective Note Sheets of the Files if processed and responded, the Authority have failed to furnish information as sought for since Sept, 12 till now (more than 9 months.) 63. Also, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam interfered his service matter vide the letter No.C.M.O/11/2005/74/ Dtd-18-3-2005 which was not also responded by the A.A.U. Authority till now as the Xerox Copy of the responded letter if any along with Note-Sheets of the Respective File have not been furnished to him till now as sought for in his said R.T.I. Application Dtd-04-1-2013. 64. In receipt of his Letter of the Petitioner addressed to the then Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Assam dated: 06-06-05 who was also member of the Board of Management, A.A.U. he requested the then Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Deptt. vide the Letter No. PEC (I) 55/2004/63, dated, the 4th July, 2005 to direct the Assam Agril. University, Jorhat to take action as directed by the Guwahati High Court in para 19 of the Judgment and Order Dated: 13/03/2002 at an early date with intimation to all concerned. But the then Deputy Secretary had kept pending the said Letter dated: 04-07-2005 for more than 05 years in spite of his request vide phone, fax and his Petition dated: 27/07/05 and in receipt of R.T.I. Application dated: 11/05/2010, the Present Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Deptt. vide the Letter No. AGA 159/2010/25, dated: Dispur the 9th Aug., 2010 sent the same to the Registrar for action. In this regard, R.T.I. Applications dated: 01/04/2013 and dated: 07/05/2013 have been submitted to the PIO, Agriculture Deptt., Assam regarding delay of 5 years w.e.f. July, 2005 to 30th July, 2010 but no response from the Agriculture Deptt. But the Registrar (Sjta. Krishna Gohain) of the University had kept pending the said Letter of Agriculture Deptt., dated: 09/08/2010 for about 5 months hence he had to submit the R.T.I. Application dated: 28/12/2010 regarding action taken on the said Letter dated: 04/07/2005 and to furnish two Notification regarding redesignating the post of Store Keeper as Store Asstt. respectively. The Said Application dated: 09/08/2010 had also been kept pending without action by the Registrar for two months hence he had filed the Appeal Petition dated: 22/02/11 against the said R.T.I. Application to the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor who also had kept pending the same for more than one and half years. In this regard R.T.I. Application dated: 01/04/2013 addressed to the Registrar, P.I.O., A.A.U. regarding delay of two and half years w.e.f. July, 2010 to Dec., 2012 but no response from the University. In this way, due to delaying techniques of both the Agriculture Deptt. & A.A.U. Authority, more than 7 years till 2012 had been elapsed without taking action on the said letter 04/07/2005 as a result of which he had to be victimized of the conspiracy to spoil his life and livelihood by the University which involve a substantial question of law. 65. That is why, the Petitioner again submitted the R.T.I. Application dated: 19-12-12 to furnish information regarding action taken on the said Appeal Petition dated: 22-02-11. In response, the Deputy Registrar on behalf of Vice-Chancellor vide the Letter No. AAU/RG/ RTI (III)/2012-13/12, 117/ Dated: 04-01-2013 informed him that status of the said Letters 04-07-2005 sent by the Agriculture Deptt. vide the Letter 09-08-2010 is correlated to his petition dated: 11-05-2011 in response of which he informed vide his Letter dated: 21-01-2013 on which this Appeal Petition has been preferred that the information as sought for in his RTI Application is different from the information as sought for in his R.T.I. Application dated: 28-12-2010 in continuation of which the R.T.I. Application dated: 19-12-12 has been resubmitted and also informed that in case of furnishing information as per R.T.I Act. 2005, the question of co-relation of petition does not arise. In this case, the para 4 of his said Letter dated: 21-01-2013 is self explanatory. But still, the Authority has not responded the said Letter dated: 21-01-2013 till now. 66. In the mean time as directed by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, the Letter of Prime Minister's Office No. PMO/13/3/2003-PMP3/21539, dated: 11th Feb. 2013 sent through the Chief Secretary's Office, Assam which was received by the Agriculture Deptt. had been forwarded to the Registrar A.A.U. to furnish information to him vide the Agriculture Deptt.'s Letter No. AGA.157/2010/532, Dated: Dispur, the 15th March 2013. In response, the A.A.U. Authority vide the Letter No. A.A.U./RG/RTI/(IV) 2012-13/133, Dated: 08-04-2013 informed that the information as sought for in his R.T.I. Application 19-12-12 had already been furnished vide their Letter dated: 04-01-13 ignoring his subsequent communications after the Letter dated: 04-01-2013. So this fact was apprised to the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor of the University vide his Petition dated: 17/04/2013 requesting him to furnish information as sought for in his R.T.I. Application dated: 14/03/2013 submitted in continuation of his said Representation dated: 21/01/2013 submitted in response to the said Letter dated: 04/01/2013 of the University. At the same time, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India was informed in details in respect of his subsequent communications vide his Letter dated: 13/04/2013 which is self explanatory with copies to the Hon'ble Vice-President of India, the Hon'ble cabinet Minister of Agriculture and the Chief Secretary to eth Govt. of Assam. Accordingly the Hon'ble Vice-President of India, enclosing the said Letter dated: 13/04/13 directs the Registrar vide Letter No. VPS/R-7-5-2013/US, dated: 7th May, 2013 to furnish information as sought for in his Application dated: 14/03/2013. In the same way, as directed by the Hon'ble President of India, the Letter of President's Secretariat Sl. No. P2/A/1501130068, dated: 15 Jan, 2013 had been forwarded by the Agriculture Deptt. vide the Letter No. AGA.157/2010/pt-1/41 dated: Dispur the 9th April, 2013 requesting the Registrar, A.A.U. to furnish information immediately as sought for in his application dated: 19/12/12, but the A.A.U. Authority has been silent > Later on the Chief Secy. , Govt. of Assam bas been directed to take action on his said Letter date: 13/04/2013 by the Hon'ble Prime Minster of India vide Letter No. 13/3/2013-PMP3/47496, Dated: 09/05/2012. 67. Due to redressal of his service matter as stated in this para 62 ,he had submitted a Representation addressed to the then Vice-Chancellor (Dr.S.S.Bagghel),A.A.U.Dtd-18-01-2005,which was snatched away along with the file by the I/C Vigilance Cell (Dr.Dilip Sarmah) from the Dealing Asstt.(Sri Daben Kalita)who informed him at the time of processing of the said Representation. This fact had been(page No 3,para-14) mentioned in the letter 10-8-2005 submitted after Termination Order, Later on ,on submission of his R.T.I. Application Dtd-4-06-2012 to furnish information regarding processing of and action taken on the said Representation Dtd-18-01-2005. the Authority informed him vide the Letter No. A.A.U./RG/R.T.I(III)/2012-13/6256/Dtd-14-8-2012 that the said petition has been already disposed by the Order of Termination Order Dtd-03-8-2005 hence it is clear that the said Representation had been disposed without observing formalities i.e., without processing and taking action through  Note-Sheet of the Respective File. 68. That on submission of his petition Dtd-30-6-05, a Discussion had been arranged on 04-7-2005 by the then Vice-Chancellor of the University (Dr.S.S.Baghel) in his office chamber in front of the then Registrar (Dr.Dilip Patgiri) and I/C Vigilance Cell (Dr.Dilip Sarmah),then the Vice-Chancellor did not say that the Petitioner was found guilty and liable for action for the charges leveled against him ,simply he asked him how he would be entitled to get pay benefits during his absent period after hearing his case history from the very beginning in the said Discussion. In response of his version the Petitioner said that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court directed the A.A.U. Authority to allow him to continue in his service with service benefits because his period of absence was not unauthorized one in terms of the said order and Judgment of the Court. Also he said that the Authority was not able to take any disciplinary action including suspension during this long period of absence hence he would be entitled to get pay and all other benefits. At last the Vice-Chancellor asked him what he wanted in response of which he said that he wanted to resume in his duty with all service benefits w.e.f.1982, then the V.C. said that the order would be given recently. It is note-worthy that though the then Registrar and the I/C Vigilance Cell attended the discussion ,they did not put any questions to him. The aforesaid fact had been mentioned in the para 18 (page No-4) of his Representation Dtd-10-8-2005 submitted after the said Termination Order 69. Grounds regarding validity of the Order under Memo. No. AAU/RG/L- 001/2003/362-68/ Dated: 10-04-2003 Modified Transfer Order. (a)	The petitioner was transferred to North Lakhimpur on 25-11-88 violating the decision of the Board of Management and after 4 days of transfer promotion Order was issued on 29-11-88 for 9 juniors superseding him on the ground that there was adverse remarks in the A.C.R of 1987 which was informed after issue of the said promotion Order. But before entries of the adverse remarks in the said A.C.R. the petitioner was not informed earlier as per Rule. Also, the said A.C.R was not obtained by the Evolution committee for promotion till the date of Promotion Order, as such suppression was vindictive and malafide. (b)	On the other hand, petitioner come to known in 2001 from the Appeal Memo of SA No.164/97 submitted by the Authority in the Guwahati High Court by the A.A.U Authority that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Store-Keeper from Store-Keeper Asstt. in 1982. But the Order of the promotion said to be maid has not been received by the petitioner who had been claiming the same to the Authority since then and afterward several times To the contrarory, he was transferred in 1988 in the same rank as L.D.A. equivalent to the Store-Keeper Asstt. So the promotion said to be made was nothing but fraud of representation on the part of A.A.U. Authority for which the petitioner had been suffering till now. (c)	In spite of two times decree in the Munsif Court in the Tittle Suit 100/88 and in the lower Appellate  Court in Tittle Appeal No. 4/95-preferred by the Authority, the petitioner was not allowed to join in his service by the Authority. (d)	The status quo prevailed by the High Court under Civil Revn. 375/89 was continuing till Dec.92. Since 1992 to 2005, these was no injunction or status-quo on the Transfer or Release order of the Petitioner, but still the A.A.U. Authority neither placed the Petitioner under suspension nor took any Disciplinary action on the Petitioner violating the Rule 6 of the Assam Service Rules 1964 with ill motive so that petitioner is neither entitled to pay nor to subsistence allowance. (e)	The Order of the second Appeal No. 164/97 was passed on 21-11-97 for issuing the Notice to respondent but steps was taken by the counsel for Appellant on 25-5-2001 after three and half years which is a kind of fraud with intention to harass the petitioner. (f)	In para 18 and 19 of the Guwahati High Courts Judgment and Order Dated-13-3-2002 under S.A No 164/97 the Hon'ble court state that pursuant to the Order of statusquo dated 8-9-89 passed by this Court in Civil Revn. 375/89 the petitioner had reported for duty at Titabor on several occasions but he was not allowed to join. The suit was filed in the year 1988 and was decreed in the year 1995. The Appeal filed by the appellants / Authority was also dismissed in the yea 1997 affirming the decree. Almost 5 (five) years have elapsed since then. It cannot be said in the facts and circumstance of the present case that the respondent/petitioner had not been litigating bonafide for a cause which he considers to be genuine. He cannot be said to be wholly responsible for the delay in disposal of the proceedings. He is admittedly an employee belonging to Grade III of the service under the University. In this circumstance, this court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court consider it fit and proper to direct the Appellant/ Authority to consider the case of the respondent/petitioner to allow him to continue in service and grant him the service benefits as would be admissible to him under the condition of service prescribed by the University for its employees without being influenced by the observations made by this Court with regard to the issues involved in the present appeal. The service of the respondent/petitioner had not in the meantime been terminated and he was still in service. (g)	The issue of this instant appeal (164/97) are -(I) Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is maintainable (II) Whether the plaintiff is protected from transfer under order of the Board Dated-05-3-88 and (III) Whether the transfer Order dated-25-11-88 was malafide? After-all, this Court setting aside the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court made the aforesaid observation which never influence the said issue if the petitioner is allowed to continue in his service with service benefits as directed by this Court simultaneously. If the petitioner is allowed to continue in service, be will get impliedly service benefits as admissible to him. But the Court cannot direct how much service benefits will be received by the petitioner if it is not prayed hence the Authority will decide the same. (h)	In spite of statusquo prevailed and two times decree in the lower Courts, the petitioner was not allowed to join in his post at the same time no disciplinary actions including suspension were not taken on the petitioner during a long period of time which means he still in service and his absent period cannot be treated as unauthorized one hence the Authority will have to transfer the petitioner with continuance of service with service benefits as directed by the Court. In this case, the question to initial proceeding for the absent period of the petitioner does not arise and it cannot be justifiable in pursuance to the said Judgment and Order of the Court which amounts willful disobedience of the Order of the Court. (i)	The Modified Transfer Order Dated-10-4-2003 was passed and issued after elapse of one year from the date of delivering the Judgment and Order of the High Court Dated-13-3-2003 so that he cannot file petition for contempt of Court on the part of the A.A.U Authority which is time barred after one year from the date of Judgment and Order on the part of the Authority. (j)	The said Order Dated-10-4-2003 had been passed and issued without continuance of service of the petitioner without service benefits in violation of the said Judgment and order Dated-13-3-2002 directing the petitioner to report for the duty with the said impugned Release Order Dated-24-7-89. Also penalties i.e. withholding of increments, since 24-7-89 and termination of service if not joined within 7 days from the date of issue of the said Order were imposed in contravention of the procedure for imposing penalties as specified in Rule 9 (1) & (2) of the Assam Service (Discipline Appeal) Rule, 1964. In sprite of the said High Court Judgment, proceeding would be initiated for his absent period as if the same was unauthorized one. That in view of the afore said statement it is clear that the said Order-10-4-2003 was irregular and passed in contravention of the said High Courts Order and the Rules 9 under the Assam Service Rules,1964 hence it is not sustainable both in facts and law and cannot be acted upon. 70.	But the Authority without disposal/ responding to the Letter Dated-10-6-2003, Charge Sheet with statement of allegation had been issued vide under Dated-08-1-2004 in response vide letter Dated-21-1-2004, the Authority was requested to wait till the decision of the matter to be redressed by the I.C.A.R as directed by the Hon'ble President and Prime Minister of India. Accordingly the Authority waited till 10-4-2004. 71.	In the mean time, having redressed the service matter of the petitioner by ICAR, the Under Secy. Deptt. Agril. Res. & Edn. had conveyed the Direction Dated- 25-3-2004 bearing two letters from the Hon'ble President and Prime Minister to the A.A.U Authority for appropriate action requesting them to send a suitable reply to the Appellant under intimation to his Deptt. Also, the Reminder Dated 26-4-2004 was sent. But without taking any suitable action, and without any intimation to the said Deptt, the Authority passed an Order vide the letter Dated-5-4-2004 which was received on 16-4-2004 constituting an enquiry committee to enquire the charges against the petitioner and submit report within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. In response the petitioner informed the Authority that in terms of the said High Court Order and disposal/redressal of the ICAR, constitution of Enquiry committee and appearing before the committee would indicate insubordination and dishonour to the Hon'ble High Court and the said Dignatories. 72.	The Chairman of the enquiry committee requested the Petitioner to attend before the Committee on May,12, 2004 vide the Letter Dated: 30-04-2004. In response the Petitioner informed the Chairman vide the Letter dated: 11-05-2004 stating his case history in details that the said Letter is unsustainable both on facts and law and in terms of the said Judgment and Direction suggesting him to honour the same hence the question of attending before the committee does not arise. 73.	As the Petitioner knows, the enquiry report was not submitted up to Feb, 2005 to the Authority which had been time barred and infractuous and Petitioner confirmed that the Authority had satisfied in his reply hence be submitted a Representation dated: 18-01-2005 to the then Vice-Chancellor (Dr. S.S. Baghel) whom was met on 24-01-05. The Petitioner had been assured for dispose of his service matter. Also its Reminder dated: 15-02-05 was submitted and it was under process. Also as advised by the Vice-Chancellor the circular dated 18-03-05 inviting Representation from Aggrieved Employee was issued under the then Registrar (Dr. Dilip Patgiri). In the meantime the 2nd Show Cause Notice was served under the signature of the same Registrar (Dr. Dilip Patgiri) vide the Letter dated: 01-04-05 along with the Enquiry Report (Time barred) which was submitted to the Registrar by the Chairman As the said Representation dated: 18-01-2005 was submitted to the Vice-Chancellor before submission of the said Enquiry Report dated: 28-02-05 and before serving the 2nd Show Cause Notice dated: 01-04-05 hence without disposing the said Representation dated: 18-01-05, serving of 2nd Show Cause Notice cannot be formal and justifiable. 74. Grounds against Charge No. 1 which is Gross violation of Orders of competent Authority and disobeying the lawful order of the Authority without any valid and justified ground and also amount to willful disobedience as mentioned in the Enquiry Report. I)	The Enquiry Committee had not issued the Letter dated: 12-05-2004 to the Petitioner in order to give him an opportunity to clarify his stand on each charges. Sending and receiving of the same can not be possible as the date of enquiry was 12-05-2004. II)	The A.A.U. Authority had no its own Service Rules, they followed the Govt. Rules as prevailed. the High Court was well known to the absence of the Petitioner. But still the court directed clearly the A.A.U. Authority to continue the Petitioner in his service on these grounds that in spite of prevailing Stalusquo since 1989 and in spite of two times decrees in the lower Appellate Courts, the Petitioner was not allowed to join in his service though he came to join on several occasions and neither suspension nor disciplinary proceedings/actions had been placed/initiated/taken on the Petitioner during the period of 12 years of absence without assigning any reason hence the Court was pleased to direct the A.A.U Authority to continue the Petitioner in his service with service benefits. So the observation of the Court can never influence the issues involved in the S.A. Appeal No. 164/97 as the Petitioner never objected his transfer with continuance of his service with service benefits as admissible to him. Of course the service benefits will be determined by the Authority as the Court does not know the same for which to initial proceeding for the absent period will be unjustifiable and not sustainable in terms of the said Judgment and Order. If proceeding is initiated dictatorially and discontinuity is proved, then the said Judgment and Order will be valueless and infractuous which mounts disobedience to the Court on the part of the Authority. Over and abvoe, penalties, i.e. withholding increments was imposed in the said Order dated: 10-04-2003 in contravention of the provisions as specified in rule 9 (1) & (2) under Assam Services (Discipline Appeal) Rules 1964 although the Authority had sufficient time at hand as the said Order was passed and issued after elapse of one year from the date of the said Judgment. Also the Petitioner was directed to report for duty with the said impugned Release Order dated: 24-07-89 which was issued on Bogus Transfer Order dated: 23-11-88 which is not in existence and was quoted in the said Release Order hence the Release Order was not issued with reference to the Transfer Order dated: 25-11-88 which was given to the Petitioner and File No. Issue No. and date of the said two transfer Order were different from each other hence the Petitioner was released illegally and without taking and handing over charges. Also the same was not amended though requested at that time and several times afterwards hence the said Release Order was not sustainable in both in facts and law and cannot be acted upon and it is illegal and not lawful. On the other hand in spite those discrepancies in the said Release Orders, there is not a single remarks in the Inquiry Report as regards the said Release Order which is a fraud, willful omission, misfeasance on the part of the Inquiry Committee. Therefore Petitioner cannot said to be released legally till now which indicate continuance of his service till now. III)	 The Petitioner came to know only from the Appeal Memo of S.A. No. 164/97 submitted by the A.A.U. Authority in the Guwahati High Court which was received in 2001 that he was promoted to the Store Keeper from the Store-Keeper Asstt. in 1982 but the Order of the said Promotion said to be made was not received till now hence be claimed promotion w.e.f. 1982 vide his representation dated: 25-11-2002 prior to the issue of the said impugned Order dated: 10-04-2003 and from time to time till now. The Registrar who was the Appellant of the S.A. No. 164/97 submitted in Page No. 4 & Ground No. of the Appeal Memo that the Petitioner was promoted to the Store Keeper from the Store Keeper Asstt. in 1982 hence the Petitioner will not be protected from transfer by virtue of the clause No. 9 of the said Memoram dated: 05-03-88 as be was the Store Keeper Asstt. at the entry point. So in his statement, the Petitioner was transferred after promotion on 25-11-88. But in fact, he was transferred vide the Order Dated: 25-11-88 as L.D.A. the rank of which equivalent to S.K.A. and afterwards the same Registrar denied having granted only promotion to the Petitioner. Therefore it is crystal clear that it was a defraud on the part of the Registrar which may not be represented properly by the Counselor for the Petitioner before the Court as the Petitioner at Titabar was not able to close in touch with counselor due to his severe financial hardship as he had been depriving of pay or any subsistence allowance since 1889. Hence due to this error in the part his counselor, the Petitioner should not be suffered. Also, filing the case for contempt of court had been time barred as the said fresh Transfer Order Dated:10-04-2003 was issued after elapse of one year from the date of Judgment hence he did not deliberately avoid this course of action. IV)	That is why, the Petitioner did not comply with the said unlawful Order dated: 10-04-2003 passed and issued in contravention of the prescribed Rules as stated above requesting the Authority to correct those discrepancies by submission of his Representation dated: 15-04-2003 which did not amount to willful disobedience of the said unlawful Order of the Authority but humble obedience of the  said Judgment & Order dated: 13-03-2002 and respectful honour for the Hon'ble High Court on the part of the Petitioner who never object his transfer with service continuation with benefits as directed and after correctness of those discrepancies as appealed. Since the Petitioner did not commit any break of prescribed rules in the matter, it was confirmed that charge No. 1 against him is not established. 75	Grounds against Charge No. 2 which is - Sending the copies of his Letter to Govt. State as well as Central Govt. Officials without any permission of the A.A.U. Authority which is treated as in subordination on his part. I)	That these was mentioned in the said Order dated: 10-04-2003 regarding removal from service within 7 days if the Petitioner has not join in his service hence on receipt of the same having horrified and mentally depressed thinking of termination of service the Petitioner sent the copies of his Petition dated: 15-04-2003 to some dignitaries of both Central and State Govts including the Hon'ble President and Prime Minister of India requesting them to interfere on his service matter and to direct the A.A.U. Authority not to terminate the service of the Petitioner. On receipt of his copies of the said Petition . The Hon'ble President and Prime Minister of India sent the same to the Secy., Agril Res. & Edn. Deptt., New-Delhi for appropriate action who after redressal of his service matter by Indian Council of Agril. Res. passed and issued a Direction vide his Letter dated: 25-03-04 to the A.A.U. Authority. As the subject matter of the Petition dated: 15-04-03 has an interlink with his other petitions dated: 24-01-04, and 17-04-04 hence he had to send copies of the Petitions also to aforesaid dignitaries which cannot be treated as a calculated attempt firstly to show the A.A.U. Authority as dictatorial in his dealings with employees and secondly to put undue pressure on it to mend very in his favour as reported by the Enquiry Committee. II)	That as per University Act, 1968, the Director General of Indian Council of Agril Res. is one of the members of the Selection Committee for appointing the Vice-Chancellor and ICAR Fund had been allotted to the University and specially, ICAR was authorized by the Hon'ble President of India through the Deptt. of Agril. Res. and Education to redress the service matter of the Petitioner hence ICAR had been said to be a competent authority who redressed his service matter on behalf of the Hon'ble President of India whose request/direction/Order cannot be denied by no one hence to appeal to aforesaid dignitaries cannot be treated as serious insubordination as repelled by the Enquiry Committee. III)	The Enquiry Committee reported that the Petitioner could have been sought the Court's intervention in the matter as alleged in his Letter dated: 11-05-04 that his transfer Order dated: 10-04-2003 was given in violation of the concerned High Court's Order dated: 13-03-2002. But the Court's intervention in the said matter had been time barred as the said Order dated: 10-04-03 was passed and issued after one year from the date of High Courts Order dated: 13-03-2002. In view of the aforesaid statements, the charge no. 2 against the Petitioner is not established. 76. Grounds against Charge No.-3 which is - Unauthorised absence from duty continuously for more than 12 years from the date of his release w.e.f. 24-07-89 on transfer which amounts to ceasation of duty on his part as per provision of F.R. 18. I)	The Enquiry Committee submitted false reports entirely as regards charge No. 3 that the Petitioner neither applied for continuation of duty nor met the A.A.U. Authority during his absent period. But it was totally false as the Petitioner submitted petition dated: ………………….. when statusquo was prevailed under Civil Rvgn. No. 375/89, but the Authority not responded. Also after two Times decrees of T.S. No 100/88 of the Munsif Court in 1995 and of T.A. No. 4/95 of the Asstt. District Judge Court in 1997, Jorhat, the Petitioner met the A.A.U. Authority submitted Petitions dated: 05-03-95, dated: 17-06-97 and the Letter dated: 02-08-97 but he was not allowed to join. So the Hon'ble High Court observed in the para 18 and 19 that the Petitioner had reported for duty at Titabar, on several occasions but he was not allowed to join. Also the Petitioner duty informed to the Authority vide the Letter dated: 17-8-89 the reasons of non-attending of duties that he had been working as usual and making preparation for handing over the charge of Store till 16-08-89 on which date the then Chief Scientist (Dr. ArunKumar Pthak) and the then Administrative Officer had verbally instructed the Petitioner not to come and work in office in future hence he informed that he can not be responsible in any way and in any case of in convenience expected to be occurred in this Station, Titabar. On the other hand, it is notable fact that during this long period of absence, the Authority neither allowed the Petitioner to oin in his service nor placed him under suspension or initiated disciplinary proceeding which indicate fraud, omission and misfeasance on the part of the Authority for which the Enquiry Committee submitted false reports totally against Charge No. 3 and the Authority accepted the same with closed eyes. II)	The Authority motivatedly maintained 3 personal File in the name of the Petitioner numbered as P-412, P-462 and P-463 and L001 and V16-38 through which some communications had been made, so that they can mislead any Enquiry Committee by concealment of facts and documents. For instance, the said Transfer Order dated: 10-04-2003 and the Letter to Show Cause Dated: 07-06-03 from File No.: L-001 Charge Sheet with statement of allegation dated: 08-01-2004 from File No.: P-412(pt), Order informing constitute the Enquiry Committee dated: 05-04-2004 & the 2nd Show Cause Notice with the Enquiry Report dated: 01-04-2005 had been communicated to the Petitioner. In this way, R.T.I. Applications in service matter are also communicated from different files. The reasons behind this maintenance of many files was to conceal the some documents prejudicial to the interest of the University from any Enquiry Committee if formed in future so that reports can be submitted in favour of the Authority. That is why the Letter dated: 17-08-89 to the Registrar the Release Order dated: 24-7-89 and various correspondences after Release Order dated: 24-07-89, other communications dated: 05-03-95, dated: 17-06-97, dated: 01-08-97 and the Letter to the Vice - Chancellor dated: 02-08-97 to report for duty, the Letter dated: 10-06-2003 in response to the said Letter to Show Cause dated: 07-06-03 were not listed in the statement of Allegation and did not submitted to the Enquiry Committee among the list of Documents, the Letter no AA.U/RARS/TTB/CS/89-90/955, dated: 25-07-89 and the Letter AAU/R/Res/P-462/91-93/2088-95, dated: 06-01-92 were not received by the Petitioner. From the statements above it is clear that the Enquiry Committee prepared its reports without some documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry in contravention of the Rule(7) under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 as the said Documents neither listed nor provided to the Enquiry Committee. III)	Lastly it was found the Petitioner was transferred in 1988 depriving of promotion since 1982. He was released in the Bogus Transfer Order in contravention of normal and formal procedure so he cannot be released legally and the said Release Order is unsustainable in fact and law and cannot be acted upon. He was not allowed to join in his duties in spite of two Times decrees in the Lower Courts. Even the Hon'ble Court directed to the Authority to allow him to continue in service with service benefits. The fresh transfer Order dated: 10-04-2003 was passed and issued not accordance to the High Courts Order and in contravention the Rule 9 (1) & (2) and Rue 9 (3) directing the Petitioner to report for duty with the said illegal Release Order hence the Petitioner did not comply with the said Order on submission of a Representation and honoured the said High Court's Judgment and Order. In the same way, his service matter was Redressed by ICAR under intervention of the Hon'ble President and Prime Minister of India of India. Also the service matter of the Petitioner was interfered by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam and the then Finance Commissioner cum the Then Member of the Board of Management A.A.U. who distinctly directed to take necessary action as directed in para 19 of the said High Court's Order & Judgment and also in the Discussion held on 04-07-2005 in his office chamber the Hon'ble Vice -Chancellor did not say that the Petitioner was found guilty and liable for action and satisfied in the reply of the Petitioner as regards his absent period. On the other hand the Enquiry committee submitted false report totally as regards charge No. 3 and prepared the report in contravention of Rule 9 (7) of Assam Service Rule, 1964 as some documents considered in the course of inquiry was not provided by the Authority. The Petitioner had been under a bonafide expectation to join his service but he had been denied wrongly the said privilege by the A.A.U. Authority and he was then still in service but the Authority illegally withheld pay or subsistence allowance without placing him under suspension or initiating / taking disciplinary proceeding / actions on him during this ling period of 12 years. In view of the aforesaid grounds the said absence of the Petitioner cannot be treated as willful and unauthorized one for more than 12 years from 24-7-89. Hence there is no question of paycut cessation of service etc. amounting to misconduct etc. so and the charge no. 3 against the petitioner can be fully denied and is not established. 77. Grounds against Charge No. 4 which is - Violation of Transfer Order of the Authority in earlier occasion also and preceed to eth Court of Law without any permission of the A.A.U Authority which is required as per A.A.U. Act. Vig48/3. 1)	The Petitioner was transferred vide the Order 25-11-88 giving 15 days time to join in the transferred place which was passed and issued ultra vises of the decision of the Board of Management, A.A.U.	 hence on receipt of the said impugned Transfer Order he submitted Appeal cum Representation Dated: 06-12-88 to the then Chief Scientist of the Station Under Rules 16, 18, &19 under Assam Service Rules (Discipline & Appeal) 1964. But the then Chief Scientist withheld the same for 3/4 days in contravention of the Rule 22 o the said Rules and returned the same orally without informing the fact and reasons there of hence he had no alternative way to redress his grievance except to proceed to the Court of Law. As per University Act if he submit petition to the Authority to intimate and obtain permission to proceed to the court of law, then the same must be returned in the same way hence the then Chief Scientist (Dr. Arun Kumar Pathak) compelled him to approach directly to the Court of Law for redressal of his grievance without obtaining permission of the A.A.U. Authority as required under A.A.U. Act. U/S 48(S). So in this case the question of any documentary evidence does not arise hence it is not a violation but obligation which cannot treat as disobedience and misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. Charge No. 4 in this way is not also established. Earlier the learned Counsel for the Petitioner may not place arguments in proper direction for which the Petitioner should not suffered. Now it was found that in view of the aforesaid statements, there was fraud, omission and misfeasance on the part of the Enquiry Committee by incomplete and false reporting specially against charge No. 3 due to non-submission of relevant documents by the Authority hence the Committee  prepared and submitted Report in contravention of the said Rule 9(7) which was irregular, false and misleading and not sustainable in facts and law and prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner hence it cannot be acceptable legally. 78. Violation of Rule 9-A regarding Communication of Orders: The Authority sent the Enquiry Report to the Petitioner without a statement of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority on each charge in contravention of the Rule 9-A of the Assam Service Rules 1964. This is a violation regarding communication of Orders. 79. The Enquire Report had been Time barred. As in the Order dated: 05-04-2004 the Authority requested the Chairman of the Committee to enquire the matter and to submit the report within 03 weeks time from the date of the receipt of the order. Inquiry was made on 12-05-2004 but Enquiry Report was submitted after 9 months on 28-02-2005 which cannot be acceptable. If the Show Cause Notice is not responded within time limit, then the response is delayed, the same has not been entertained. In the same way, the time barred Enquiry Report can not be acceptable. On the other hand, it was submitted after High Court's Judgment and after redressel of service matter by ICAR. The Inquiry Report was issued on 01-04-2005 as the Vice Chancellor was out of the station w.e.f. 21-03-05 to 02-11-05 hence it may be suspected whether the Report was approved or not by the Vice - Chancellor. In conclusion, the charges on which enquiry was made cannot be said to be established. AS stated above, the Release Order is illegal on which these is no statement in reporting. The fresh Transfer Order dated: 10-04-2003 was irregular and not sustainable as it was passed and issued in contravention of the Rule 9(1) & (2) of the Assam Service Rules 1964 hence enquiry and reporting in this impugned order is baseless and not sustainable. The statements in reporting against the charge No. 3 are totally false. The Enquiry Report is prepared and submitted in contravention of the Rule 9(7) of the Assam Service Rules, 1964. Also, the Enquiry Report had been Time-barred, over and above, the Authority violated the Rule 9-A regarding Communication of Orders. Therefore, under Rule 9(3), the Enquiry Report will amounted to violation of the principle of natural justice violating the entire disciplinary proceeding. A case cited in this case. Rule 9(3)1 Procedure for departmental enquiry under the rule mandatory = Imposing penalty without complying with requirements of mandatory provision held violative of the provision. The mandatory provisions of Rule he have not been complied with in the proceeding and without prior consultation with the Commission, the disciplinary authority passed the Order imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, while the entire provision as made in Rule 9 of the Rules is held to be mandatory any violation thereof shall amounts to violation of principle of natural justice violating the entire disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, in the present case, imposition of penalty withholding two increments of the petitioner by the impugned order appears to be clear violation of the provision of Rule 9 of the Rules and hence it is liable to struck down. (Madhab Chandra Das Vs. State of Assam (1987) 2 Gau L.R. 210 at p. 220) 80. That in terms of the said Judgment and Order of the High Court Dtd-13-3-2002, in spite of the discrepancies in the said order Dated-10-4-2003,redressal of his service matter by the Indian Council of Agril. Res. as directed by the Hon'ble President and Prime Minister of India, interference on his service matter by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam and the said fruitful Discussion as stated and also without disposing the said Representation Dtd-18-1-2005 the then Registrar (Dr.Dilip Patgiri)issued to him the Termination Order under Memo No.A.A.U./R.G/Res/P-462(Pt)/2005/5666-72/Dtd-03-8-2005 perhaps without the approval of the then Vice-Chancellor as the words "It is directed to inform" or "Under the approval of the Vice-Chancellor" etc have not been mentioned in the said Termination Order hence legal points arised in the aforesaid grounds regarding validity of issuing of the said Termination Order involve a substantial question of law. Now subsequent communication after the Termination Order have been stated in the following paras. 81. That though service had been terminated vide order Dtd. 03-08-2005 under the signature of the then Registrar (Dr. Dilip Patgiri), immediately, the Petitioner submitted the Appeal Petition Dtd-10-08-2005 addressed to the Hon. Chairman, of the Board of Management, A.A.U cum the Vice Chancellor of the University in the last para of which his Appeal was either to resume him in his service with all his service benefits or to place the matter in the Board of Management for its settlement. In continuation of the said Appeal petition Dtd-10-08-2005, the Reminder Dtd. 29-08-2005 was submitted. In response, the then Registrar (Dr. Dilip Patgiri) informed him vide his Letter Dtd-30-09-2005 that his appeal was considered by the authority but found that as per rules his case cannot be forwarded to the Board of Management. Then he requested the then Hon. Secretary, Board, A.A.U. cum the then Registrar vide his petition Dtd. 17-10-05. that as his appeal was considered by Authority hence there is no necessity to place the matter in the Board and at present the Authority have to issue the final order resuming the appellant in his service with all his service benefits. That is in his favour and the decision vide the Letter 30-09-05. stands not against his subsequent appeal Dtd. 17-10-05 . 82. On the other hand, after considering his appeal vide the Letter Dtd-30-09-05 (Flag-G) the same Registrar (Dr. Dilip Patgiri) informed him after onr year vide his Letter Dtd. 16-08-2006 under subject- "Regarding submission of representation" without mentioning the date of the Representation that his representation (not mentioning any date) had been examined by the Authority and his request could not be considered. In response he informed the then Register ( Dr. Dilip Patgiri) vide his Letter Dtd-24-08-2006 that the said Letters Dtd-16-08-2006 bearing no reference is unsustainable both on facts and in law and cannot be acted upon as informed by him the date of the Representation which was examined by the Authority had not been mentioned in his said Letter. However, he was requested to inform the date of the said Representation. But no reply was given from his end till this date (more than seven years) hence the said Letter has been treated to be baseless and infractuous and cannot be acted upon.. Therefore it is not true that his appeal Petition was disposed by the said baseless Letter Dtd-16-8-2006 under Memo No.A.A.U/R-F-1.2/P-463(part)/2006-07/6679. 83. Even on receipt the copy of the said Appeal Petition Dtd-10-08-2005 the then Hon. President of India (Dr. A.P. J. Abdul Kalam) had forwarded the same to the Secretary, Agril Res. & Education Deptt., New Delhi for appropriate action vide Letter No- PI/D-85136 Dtd-17 Aug.,2005. But the said Appeal Petition Dtd.-10-08-2005 has been kept pending by the then Secretary, of the said Dept. for about 7years. (Perhaps managed by the then A.A.U. Authority. At present, receiving his R.T.I. Application Dtd-30-05-2012, the present Secretary, Agril. Res & Education Deptt., "through the Indian Council of Agril. Res., New-Delhi had sent the same to the Registrar, Assam Agril. University. Vide the Letter FNO.-6-18/2010-A&P (Edn) Dtd. The 11th June, 2012 for providing the required information under intimation to I.C.A.R. and also, the present Hon. President of India (Sjt. Pronab Mukharjee) had sent the copy of the said R.T.I. Application Dtd. 30-05-12 with enclosures through I.C.A.R. to the Registrar (Sjt Krishna Gohain) A.A.U. for providing information vide his Office Letter Si. No. PI/E/1206120232 Dtd. 12th June, 2012 mentioned in the Letter F. No. 6-18/2010- A& P (Edn) Dtd the 9th August 2012 sent by I.C.A.R. New-Delhi. But the present Registrar (Sjta Krishna Gohain) A.A.U. has kept pending the said the Letter Dtd-11-06-2012 as waste paper without taking any action for more than 11 months. 84. In the mean time, not having received the final order for reinstatement the Petitioner submitted again Representation Dtd 14-5-07 to the then Vice-Chancellor, A.A.U for reinstatement in his service with service benefit. Then as directed by the then Vice-chancellor, the then Registration (Dr B.C. Bhowmik) informed him that his representation had been properly considered by the authority and disposed off vide his office Letter No A.A.U /RG- 1 2/P-463 (Pat) / 2007-08 /3489 Dtd 04-06-2007 under Sub: Regarding disposal of claim Dtd 14-05-2007,As his appeal/claim for reinstatement preferred in his petition Dtd 14-05-2007 had been disposed off in his favour vide the Letter Dtd 04-06-2007 so the A.A.U Authority have to issue the Final Order to reinstatement in his service with service benefit as prayed for in his petition Dtd 11-06-2007 and mentioning of the said baseless Letter Dtd 16-08-2006 in the said Letter Dtd 04-06-2007 is meaningless and infractuous for the reasons as stated in the 82 para of this Appeal petition and this Letter dated 16/08/2006 cannot be acted upon. Also the said the Letter Dtd 04-06-2007 was issued in response to the subject of his Appeal petition Dtd 14-05-2007. In this way the present Vice-Chancellor (Dr.Kamal Molla Bujarbourah) had been appealed vide Appeal Petition Dtd-16-12-2009 for reinstatement in his service with service benefits w.e.f. 1982 and Reminders have been sent but yielded no result.(Last Reminder Dtd-12-11-12). 85. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid statements that the A.A.U Authority had considered his Appeal for reinstatement two times vide the Letters Dtd. 30-09-2005 and Dtd. 04-06-2007 in response of which the Petitioner submitted the petition Dtd. 17-10-2005 and Dtd. 11-06-2007 for reinstatement hence he requested to provide information regarding actions taken on these two petitions Dtd. 17-10-2005 & Dtd. 11-06-2007 along with  Xerox copies of the Note Sheets of the file through which then two petitions have been processed or will be process as sought for vide his Letter Dtd. 01-10-2012 submitted in continuation of his R.T.I. Application Dtd. 03-09-2012. But information as sought for have not been furnished till now. 86. Also the Registrar was requested to provide information as regards action taken on the Letter F No-6-18/2010-A&P (Edn) Dtd 11-06-2012 sent by I.C.A.R as directed by the Hon. President of India in support of his aforesaid Appeal petition Dtd 10-08-2005  along with the Xerox copies of the Note Sheets of the file through which this petition/Letter have been processed on will be process as sought for vide his Letter Dtd 01-10-2012 and R.T.I. Application Dtd 03-09-2012 But the Registrar have not taken any action as directed by the present Hon'ble President of India. 87. Further, in support of his R.T.I Application Dtd 03-09-2012 the Hon. President of India through the Indian Council of Agril. Res. New Delhi sent three Letters vide F No 18/2010-A&P (Edn) Dtd 25-10-2012, the Hon. Vice President of India directly sent the Letter No VPS/ R31-09-2012/US 21st Sept., 2012 and the Director of General, ICAR sent the two Letters F.No 6-18/2010 -A&P (Edn) Dtd -20-09-2012 and Dtd 16-10-2012 in support of his said R.T.I Application and the Letter Dtd 01-10-2012 to the Registrar, A.A.U requesting her to provide required information under intimation to the Education Division of the I.C.A.R. 88. The Petitioner beg to submit that almost all his Letters/RTI Applications have not been attended to and have not been furnished required information by the Authority except misleading statements. Hence the same sets of information have to be asked for again and again. The copies of the said Letters/RTI Applications have been submitted to some dignitaries of both the Central & state Govt. not using of higher echelon but on this reason that his letters and R.T.I. Applications have been kept pending without taking any action by the A.A.U. Authority years by years until and unless the said dignitaries have directed and pressed the Authority for action. .As such the A.A.U. Authority have no right to give indirect warning to dignitaries concerned. 89. Due to misfile of the letter Dated: 06-11-12 of the Authority, the Petition Dtd-08/10/2013 was submitted stating anti-grounds against the statements as made in the Letter of the University under Memo No. A.A.U./R.G/R.T.I/(S.A)/2012-13/10792 Dtd-6-11-2012 as submitted in response to the Letters of same dignitaries as referred in the para 87 of the this Petition. 90. Again, the Registrar, A.A.U was requested to furnish information on the issue of the said Representation,Dtd-21-1-2013 by the Joint Secy to the Govt. of Assam ,Agriculture Deptt. vide the letter no.157/2010(R.T.I)/Pt/27.Dtd Dispur, the 23rd Nov.2012 as directed the Chief Minister of Assam vide the Letter No.C.M.S.2/2011/R.T.I/P.t/110 Dtd-May 13,2011.In this regard ,the 5 para of the Representation ,21-1-2013 is self-explanatory. 91. Also,the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor of the University (Dr.Kamal Molla Bujarborah ) was humbly prayed vide his Letter Dtd-07-2-13 to honour the letter of Vice-President Secretariat Dtd-30-01-2013 and the said Letter Dtd23-11-2012 and to furnish information as sought for in his said Representation Dtd-21-01-2013. 92. Later on, the Hon'ble President of India vide the President Secretariat Regn.No.P2/D/2002/302430 P8 Dtd-21-01-2013 had directed the A.A.U. Authority through the Agriculture Deptt. Assam vide the Letter No A.G.A.157/2010/Pt-11/47 Dtd., Dispur, the 5th April 2013 to dispose the said Representation Dtd-21-01-2013 immediately. Also R.T.I. Application Dtd-08-05-2013 was submitted for immediate disposal of the said Representation Dtd-21-01-2013 taking action on the said letter of Agriculture Deptt.Dtd-05-04-2013 sent as directed by the Hon'ble President of India. But the A.A.U. Authority has not responded the same till this date. Also in support of the said R.T.I. Application dated: 08-05-2013 the Asstt. Legal Advisor ICAR and the Deptt. of Legal Affairs of Central Gvot. have requested the Authority to furnish information vide letters dated: 26-06-2013 & dated: 23-10-13 93. Due to non-response to his said Representation Dtd-21-01-2013 by the A.A.U. Authority in spite of elapse of more than 2 months. R.T.I. Application Dtd-14-03-2013had been submitted regarding action taken on the said Letter of Vice-Presidents Secretariat No.V.P.S/R-30-01-2013/U.S/Dtd.5-01-2013as stated in the 3rd para of this Appeal Petition. 94. Further service matters have been published in various Newspaper several times since 2006,as some dignitaries of both State and Central Govt. including the Hon'ble President and Vice President of India had been informed vide his Letter Dtd-19-09-2012 that the A.A.U. Authority had failed to publish counter statements against his said News Reports hence the respective Paper Clippings containing his news reports may be treated as Documents on which necessary action can be taken. In response ,the Hon'ble Vice-President of India vide the Letter No.V.P.S/R-03-10-2013/U.S/3rd Oct.2012 requested the Chief Secy. of Assam to take action on the said News Reports. Then the Joint Secy. to the Govt. of Assam, Agriculture Deptt. Vide the Letter No.A.g.a/57/2010(R.T.I)/Pt-1/II Dtd : Dispur, the 29 thDec.2012 enclosing the said Letter of Vice-President's Secretariat Dtd-3-10-2012 requested the Registrar of the University (Sta Krishna Gohain) to furnish information to the Petitioner with the intimation to the Agril. Deptt.But no information has been furnished in this regard by the Registrar till this date in spite of the R.T.I. Application (Under Subject of Information Sought-A) Dtd-14-3-2013 as submitted. In the meantime, again the Hon'ble Vice-President of India vide the Letter No.V.P.S/R-21-03-2013/U.S/Dtd 21st March.2013 directed the Registrar to take action on his said R.T.I Application Dtd-14-03-2013 which also has not been responded till now. 95. Furthermore, as an agitational measure, the Sign-Board and Banner Containing information against the A.A.U. Authority have been hanging in front of his Road side Residence of Dhodar Ali Titabor since 2011 in order to draw public attention. The statements in the said Bannar and Sign Board are that Due to be a member of minority community, the Petitioner (Sayeed Ahmed)have not been allowed to join in his service in accordance with the verdict of the Guwahati High Court which directed the A.A.U. Authority to continue in his service with service benefits. Rather, his pay even subsistence allowance have been held up since 1989 by which the Authority has been trying to attempt to murder him. Even the Registrar of the University (Sita Krishna Gohain) has not furnished intentionally required information under Right to Information Act,2005. Some of these information are that to give the Promotion Order of 1982 as mentioned in the Appeal Memo submitted in the High Court by the Authority ,to give the said Transfer Order Dtd-23-11-88 as mentioned in his Retear Order Dtd-24-07-89, to furnish information regarding action taken as per High Court's Judgment as directed by the Agriculture Deptt, Assam on request of of the then Finance Commissioner Assam, who was also then member of the Board of Management, A.A.U.in 205 etc which are stated in details in this Appeal Petition. The main reason of the aforesaid oppression as has been made by the A.A.U. Authority is to safe guard Dr. Arun Kumar Pathak, Ex then Chief Scientist of Regional Agril,Res,Station,Titabor,Ex Director of Res and Ex.I/C Vice Chancellor of the University,Sjt.Kamoleswar Phukon, Ex. then Asstt. Registrar of University and Dr.Dilip Patgiri, Ex. Registrar of the University and now Professor of Soil Science Deptt.A.A.U who were directly entangled with his service matter. There is statement another Sign Board which has been hanged that the dictatorship ,terrorism corruption, untruthfulness ,and Shamelessness the Authority of Assam Agril University have been exposed by the aforesaid Banner and Sign-Board as stated above. The respective Photo has been enclosed in the List of Documents. On the other hand A.A.U Authority have not able to take disciplinary action on the Petitioner in spite of the aforesaid impugned statements as have been displayed continuously drawing public attention. 96. Due to non-response from the Authority, the Petitioner again submitted the petition addressed to the Hon'ble Vice President of India Dtd-21-03-2013 requesting him to direct the A.A.U. Authority to furnish information as sought for in his said R.T.I. Applications Dtd-14-03-2013 and Dtd-05-03-2013 and in the Letter addressed to the Vice-Chancellor Dtd-22-12-2012 in response of which the Hon'ble Vice-President of India had directed the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor of the University to take action for redressal of his grievances. Vide the Letter V.P.S/R-03-04-2013/U.S/3rd April,2013. So R.T.I. Application Dtd-25-04-13 have been submitted on the said Letter of Vice-President's Secretariat Dtd-03-04-2013 and also on the Letter Dtd-03-04-2013 against which this Appeal Petition has been filed. But the Authority has not responded the same. 97. As regards his aforesaid Letter Dtd-22-12-12, the Petitioner beg to inform that at first R.T.I. Application Dtd-18-02-2011 had been submitted to furnish information regarding applicability and validity of the Clause No 8 & 9 of the order under Memo No.A.A.U/R-1141/87-88/30,939-88/Dtd-05-03-88 etc in response the P.I.O.A.A.U./\. sent the Letter No.A.A.U./;R.G/R.T.I.-S.A./2010-11/15,30…. Dtd-24-02-2012 with misleading information. Then he submitted the Appeal Petition Dtd-21-4-2011 which is self explanatory .In response to his R.T.I. Application Dtd-28-11-12 again submitted the P.I.O. A.A,U. on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor/First Appellate Authority furnished the same information vide the Letter No. A.A.U./R.G/R.T.I(III)/2012-13/11506.Dtd-17-12-12 by enclosing the previous Letter Dtd-24-2-13 against which the Appeal Petition was preferred. He had failed to mention any counter ground against his appeal grounds. That is why, the Petitioner submitted the said Letter addressed to the Vice Chancellor /First Appellate Authority ,Dtd-22-12-12 praying him the said Promotion Order of 1982 said to be made in the Appeal Memo as submitted to the Guwahati High Court if the said Clause No.8 & 9 are not applicable to him at present in the opinion of the Authority. As regards the said Promotion w.e.f.1982,as Store-Keeper, the para 7 of the said Petition Dtd-22-12-12 is self explanatory. But the said Letter Dtd-22-12-12 has not been responded till now. 98. In the same way, his earlier Application Dtd-21-03-13 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam has been forwarded to the Hon'ble Agriculture Minister of Assam vide Dy No.2373 Dtd-25-3-2013 as informed him vide the Letter of Chief Minister's Secretariat, Assam No.C.M.S. 59/2013(R.T.I)/17.May 9/20/13. Then he submitted a letter Dtd-21-05-2013 to the Agriculture Minister to furnish information regarding action taken on the said Letter Dtd-09-5-2013. 99. Form the aforesaid Appeal Grounds it is crystal that the Hon'ble President, Vice-President and the Prime Minister of India and also the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam have directed to dispose of the said Representation Dtd-21-01-2013 simultaneously Even the Hon'ble Vice Present of India sent Letters several times in this regard and also the Hon'ble President of India has directed the A.A.U. Authority vide the Letter of President Secretariat Registration NoP2/D/2002/302430298 enclosing his said Representation Dtd-21-01-13 as sent by the Agriculture Deptt, Assam vide Letter No.AGA/57/2010/Pt-11/47 Dtd Dispur the 5 the April,2013 for immediate disposal of the said Representation. Earlier, both the Hon'ble Ex .President of India (Dr.A.P.J Abdul Kalam)and the Hon'ble present President of India has directed the A.A.U. Authority to take action on his said Appeal cum Representation Dtd-15-04-2005 before Termination Order and on his said Appeal cum Representation Dtd-10-08-2005 submitted in receipt of the Termination Order .In this regard, the para 10,11 and,14 of this Appeal Petition under Heading & Appeal Grounds against the Letter 03-4-2013 are self explanatory. But still the A.A.U. Authority have been silent and have not responded to his said Representation DTD-21-01-2013 and its correlated Petitions and R.T.I. Applications dishonouring the request / directions of the aforesaid Dignitaries as well as the R.T.I Act,2005. 100. The Petitioner reserve the right to further grounds and documents if necessary subject to the pleasure of the Court. 101. In conclusion, on the basis of the aforesaid Appeal Grounds he have the honour to draw your kind attention to a few lines for your judicative decision and fruitful kind necessary action from your end and states here under. (a) The Petitioner was transferred on violation of the decision of the Board of Management, Assam Agril. University made under Memo Dtd-05-03-88. (b)He was not allowed to submit the Appeal cum Petition Dtd-06-12-88 to reconsider his Transfer Order Dtd-25-11-88for which he was compelled to resort to the court. (c)The Transfer Order Dtd-25-11-88 which was given to him was not mentioned in his said Release Order Dtd-24-7-89 or the said Release Order Dtd-24-07-89 was not ammended in spite of request several times. (d) He was not allowed to join in his service in spite of two times decree in the Lower Appellate Courts. (e)The Promotion of 1982 said to be made as mentioned in the Appeal Memo submitted in the Guwahati High Court by the Authority was not given to him in spite of request several times. (f)The Hon'ble High Court delivered the Judgement and Order Dtd-13-03-2002 directing the Authority to continue him in service with service benefits as admissible to him treating his absent Period as authorized one. (g) Moreover ,his service matter had been redressed by the Indian Council of Agril Ress.as directed by the Hon'ble President and the Prime Minister of India through the Secretary, Deptt. of Agriculture Research and Education, New-Delhi. (h) In terms of the said High Court's Judgment and after redressal of his service matter by I.C.A.R., if the Authority initiate proceedings against his absent Period, constitute Enquiry Committee to enquire Charges Leveled against him ,impose Penalties, serve .Show cause notice etc. then the said High Courts Judgment will be infractuous and it will be deemed to be violating of the said verdict of the High Court. (i) Due to discrepancies in case of non continuity of his service ,the said impugned Release Order, Promotion etc. he refrain .from joining in his service submitting the Representation Dtd-15-04-2003.which can not amount to his willfull disobedience of the order A,.A.U. but respectful honour to the said High Court's Judgment & Order .But he did not object the Transfer with service benefits as directed. j) There were fraud, omission and misfeasance both on the part of the Enquiry Committee and the Authority as well hence, the said Enquiry Report is irregular, violative of the mandatory provisions under Rule, 9, and violative of the Rule 9-A of Assam Service Rules, 1964, hence it is not sustainable both in facts and law and cannot be acted upon and is liable to struck down in consequence of which the termination Order dated: 3-8-2005 is irregular, violative of the mandatory provision under Role 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, malafide and ill motivated prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner hence it is not sustainable both on facts and law and illegal  and liable to be struk down and should be set aside. So it cannot be acted upon as because the A.A.U authority decided to remove the petitioner accepting the said impugned and timebarred Enquiry Report and accordingly the said Termination Order was passed and issued under Rule 7(VII) of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1964 not disqualifying the petitioner for future employment. k) Over and above the Authority considered appeal for reinstatement in service with service benefits w.e.f. 1982 vide their letter Dated 30-9-2005 and Dated 04-6-2007 without any counterstatement against the Appeal petitions Dated 10-8-2005 and Dated 14-5-2007 as submitted under Rule 15 by the petitioner after the Termination Order Dated 3-8-2005. l) But he was not reinstated by final Order for reinstatement although he submitted subsequent appeals from time to time for the same but the Authority withheld the said Appeal petition in contravention of the Rule 20 and Rule 24 of the Assam Service Rules, 1964 although those Appeal submitted by the petitioner were not in contravention of the said Rule 20. m) In the same way the Authority withheld the R.T.I Application seeking information from time to time regarding service matters in spite of direction/request of the Hon'ble President, Vice-President, the Prime-Minister of India, Ministers for Law & Justice and Education, India, the Director General of Indian the Governor council Agril Res. even from its legal cell, the Governor Chief and Agriculture Minister of Assam. n) In stead of honouring these Dignitaries the Present Resistrar (Sjta Krishna Gohain) submitted forged report to the Governor/ Chancellor Assam Agril University vide his letter Dated 12-4-2011." That the petitioner filed write petition in Guwahati High Court against the dismissal Order. However the Court up held the dismissal Order by the University Authority. Since then he has been trying various means to get back his job." She reported in this reason that the Hon'ble Chancellor of University does not interfere or pass any Order on the service matter of the petitioner in future. o) Also the Authority had held up his pay subsistence allowance since 1989 for the about 24 years. But during this period he had not been placed under suspension. They initiated disciplinary proceeding after 14 years and illegally terminated after 16 years since 1989 hence he was in service in this period as he was not terminated in the meantime. p) These is no such Rule in the world that if an employee had not been allowed to join in service after Court Judgment, had not been placed under suspension and no disciplinary actions were taken upon him under Rule 7 of the Assam Service Rule, 1964 during a period of 16/17 years but his pay had been held up for this period and then he was terminated. q) So he will be entitled to all service benefits during this period and also he will be entitled all Service benefits after the termination Order which is irregular, violative of prescribed Rules, and not sustainable both on facts and law. r) The petitioner had completed more than 25 years service till termination hence he will automatically be entitled to pension benefits also. s) Also, a vital fact specially in case of withholding his pay is hereby drawn to the kind attention of the Hon'ble Court that the Petitioner had submitted a petition addressed to the then Hon'ble President of India dated: 21-03-2004 suspecting a fact that the amount of pay had been demanded by the Authority in the Budget years by years since 1990. Though it had not been disbursed to the Petitioner and such a vast undisbursing amount had not been deposited but expended on personal use of some official or on other activities without proper and formal authority. That is why, he prayed the Hon'ble President to make an enquiry on the aforesaid matter under intimation of the respective report to the Petitioner. Then the Hon'ble President forwarded the petition to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Deptt. of Agriculture and Co-operation, New - Delhi for appropriate action vide PI/P-222511 dated: 6th April, 2002. But the said Petition had been kept pending more than 6 years. So on submission of R.T.I. Application dated: 12-07-10, the said deptt. sent the same to ICAR on 05-08-2010 and the I.C.A.R. forwarded the petition with the said R.T.I. Application to the Registrar, A.A.U. vide F. No. 6-18/2010-A&P (Edn), dated: 16-08-2010 for providing information directly to the Petition. But the Authority neither furnished any information to the Petitioner nor intimated to I.C.A.R. till now in spite of submission of R.T.I. Application dated: 01-04-13. Therefore, it is proved that the said suspicion of the petitioner cannot be false. t) The letters sent in support of his service matter from the Dignitaries of both Central and State Govt. have been kept pending as waste papers without assigning any reason. u) Due to pending his Letters as delaying technique by both the A.A.U Authority and the Agriculture Deptt. years by years, the Petitioner had to be victimized of the conspiracy of the A.A.U. Authority so that he can not be reinstated in his service with service benefits as per said High Courts Judgment Order and in this way his retirement age can be over on 31st Dec,2013. v) Over and above ,.the A.A.U. Authority is not able to take his disciplinary action on him regarding hanging of the said and Banner & Sign Board publicly .    The impugned statements and also no counter statements have been published against his said News-Reports as sent by the Hon'ble Vice-President of India. w) Further, it is draw to your kind attention that it may not be irrelevant to demand compensation from the A.A.U. Authority on these grounds. That the Authority had compelled him to resort to the court for which the Petitioner bound to litigate continuously at the cost of time energy and huge amount of money, without receiving pay or even. any subsistence allowance during this long period of time (23) years to seek justice and his Legitimate dues as a result of which many objects and activities of his life had remained incompleted and also due to paucity of fund, his mother faced immature death in 2003 as well as his father had died in 2005 without proper treatment of his old age ailments. Moreover, he deprived of and disqualified to join in any other post of other establishments, organization, institutions etc due to overage. Also his social status and prestige had been degraded which means defamation. In this way his whole life has been passed away with continuous agitation without enjoyment, with mental harassment with unbearable pains and sufferings and severe financial hardship beyond imagine. Therefore, in this circumstances Your Lordship will be pleased if you deemed it fit and proper to direct the A.A.U. Authority to pay 50 Laks as compensation etc .to him. He shall be ever grateful for your proper justice and rescue as rendered. This is his humble submission and pray. In this way, the petitioner had been victimized of conspiracy of the Authority to attempt to murder the Petitioner by adopting delaying technique and by virtue of fraud, omission, obstruction, suppression, mischief, misconduct, misfeasance continued mental & economic oppression on the part of the A.A.U Authority. Therefore, under this circumstance if the Hon'ble President of India through the Commission does not grant and direct with time limit to give full pay and all other service benefits including pension with retrospective effect w.e.f. 1982 along with compensation as prayed for, then the Petitioner will surely deprived of natural and legal justice and equity which may injure on his mind, body, reputation and prosperity and also it may motivate others and may be an incentive to any others to commit crimes and offences freely. So the Hon'ble President of India through Commission will be pleased to pass such fruitful positive order as deemed fit and proper for ends of justice etc.

It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble President through the Commission would be please to pass a decree and to pass the positive order as deem fit for -

(1) 	For determining some substantial questions of law of general importance and public interest involved 	in the Second Appeal No. 164/97 preferred by The Authority of Assam Agril. University, Jorhat. (2) 	For declaring that the order of Release under Memo No. AAU/RARS/TTB/CS/89-90/926-31 Dtd-24.7.89 passed and issued under signature of the then Chief Scientist, Regional Agril, Res. Station, Titabar is malafide, ill motivated and against the principles and rules of normal and formal procedure of issue of Release Order as followed by the Authority of Assam Agril, University, Jorhat as such 	it is illegal and ultra vires of the rules of the University therefore cannot be given effect to. (3) 	For declaring that the subsequent Transfer Order passed and issued after Gauhati High Court’s Judgment and Order Dtd 13-3-2002 under Memo No. A.A.U/RC/L-001/2003/36268 Dtd-10-4-2003 and the Termination order under Memo No. AAU/RG/RES/P-462(Pt)/2005/5666-72 Dtd-03-8-2005 passed and issued under the signature of the then Registrar, Assam Agril. University are malafide, ill motivated and against the Rules of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964 as such these are illegal and cannot be acted upon and should be set aside. (4)	To grant his pay and all other service benefits including pension with w.e.f from 1982. (5)	To grant Rupees 50 Lakhs as compensation with cost for filing the petition and any other relief which the Hon'ble Precident may dim fit and proper.

Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, Arkut etc. to publish as news in home page, other page etc. and to send the same to respective members.