Sikkim Human Rights Commission Copy - I

8/12/2019 Sikkim Human Rights Commission Copy - I

1/24

Minutes of the hearing, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Others Versus Sikk im Universit yheaded by Hon b le Justice A. N. Ray, Chairperson, Sikkim State Human RightsCommission on 21 and 22/09/2012 at SHRC Bungalow No .9 VIP Colony.Mrs. Bim la Dahal, Private Secretary Mr. Raju Chet t ri, P.A. (For theCommission)

-AND-Present:-SL NO. NAME DESIGNATION1 Manoranjan Mishra2 Ra jendra Prasad

An intimationint imating her

has been received from Ms. Madhuchandra i j a t t a c h a ~ eillness. She was counsel for t r e Sikkim University on the last

occasion, i.e., 5/9/2012 . Her junior Advocate is also absent. A University letterstates that he has gone elsewhere; the letter for adjournment was left at t he deskof my Private Secretary yesterday. Nobody else is present from the side of t heUniversity today. It is unsat isfactory and qu ite inexcusable. But it is t heir business.

It is not that the Universit y and Mahendra P Lama, t he Vice Chancellor att he mater ia l t ime, have not been heard at all . They have been heard at length .

Arguments were made on several days by the University Off ice bearers, and theirprevious Counsel, f Advocate r D R Thapa and on 5th September by MsBhhattacharjee.

The complainants before the Commission are four in number, namely,Rajendra Prasad, Manoranjan M ishra, Shaiendra Kumar Mishra and Tapas Bain .The fi rst complaint before t he Commission was made in or about the last wee k of


2/24

March 2011 and was signed by th e f irst th ree only but Bain was also mentionedth ere.

The complaint was shor t and simple. All four were teachers of the SikkimUniversity under let ters of employment, the term of which still had t ime to rununtil 31/3/ 2012 for Prasad and Manoranjan and for Shailendra Tapas t he term,had run out on 27 012.

Thus, the former two suffe red more when th ey i.e. Rajendra andManoranjan were intimated on or about th e is of March 2012 ofdiscontinuation of th eir services on the ground of misconduct.

The said Office Order is set out below.Sikkim University/ 2011-12/6008

OFFICEORDERDATED: 16TH MARCH 2012

The Executive Council at it s meeting held on Friday, isMarch 2012 has di rectedthe undersigned to discontinue th e services of Shri Rajendra Prasad, Assis tantProfessor Cont ractual , Department of Peace and Confli ct Studies andManagement and Dr. Manoranjan Mishra, Assistant Professor Contractual ,

Department of Geography of Natural Resources Management from the Universitywith effect f rom the afte rnoon of is March 2012 on grounds of misconduct .

Sd / -Regist rar

As far as the latter two i.e. Shailendra and Tapas are concerned no orderwas sent to t hem but simp ly t heir te rm was not extended.2


3/24

13The name of these two appeared along with th e names of the oth er two in

the Minutes of 163/ 2012 held by th e Executive Council of t he UniversityThis meeting was held not in Sikkim but at New Delhi There was

apparently great haste on the par t of some person or personsThe M inutes of th e meeting and its text were not communicated to the

fou r teachers Those Minutes were seen by th e Commission only on 5/9/2012when th ose were produced in photocopi es at the heari ng

Rajendra and Manoranjan were at tending on that date; th ey however hadgot the copies of th e minutes from the Court paperswh ich were filed in answer toa Writ Petit ion of these complainants

In th e Writ Petition lapses have been alleged as we ll impropriety andbreach of Rules in grant of fresh employments Those complaints have beencategorically left out of th e pro ceedings before the Commi ssion Lama wasbranded in th e petition as th e main culprit

Mr Thapa argued th at the complainants appeared in the selection processwhich they have challenged in the Writ That argument and that fact are notrelevant here

The Minutes of 16/3/2012 are also set out in a representation fil ed by theclaimants before the Commission today A copy of representation is also handedover to the Commission today and it will be transmitted to the University by theomm ss on

\


4/24

14A second representa tion is also fi led by the complainants, calculati ng the

compensation payable to them as per their assessment. A copy is similarly handedover for transmission to the Sikkim University.

The tota l claim is for the sizable sum of a little under s 13,00,000/-(RupeesThirteen Lakhs only) for Prasad, Manoranjan, Shailendra and Tapas

The relevant portion of the Minutes of 1632 12 are set out below.

Minutes:12.10.1 The Hon ble Chairperson made a comprehensive narration before theHouse describing the circumstances in whi ch the University has brought thisAgenda item before the Executive Council. The House severely condemned theact of misconduct by the contractual faculty members for their involvement insuch ant i University campaign. The House also thoroughly deliberated upon th erepresentation dated 27 Febru ary 2012 signed by Shri Rajendra Prasad, ShriShailendra Kr. Mishra, Shri Tapas Bayen, Shri P. M. Sorel, Dr. Manoranjan Mishraand Smt. Rinki D. Kesharwani addressed to th e Hon ble Members of th e SecondExecutive Council through the Registrar, Sikkim University.

12.10.2 After a detai led discussion on th e issue the House decided that in thebest interest of the University and also to ensure that such incidents do not occurin future that a punitive action shall have to be taken against those persons whotry/ tr ied to defame the University on baselessgrounds.The House unanimously adopted th e resolution as follows:


5/24

IS fter a pro longed deliberation, t he Executive Council was satisfied that a

condign action shall have t o be taken against certain members of t he faculty inthe best inte rest of Sikkim University. The members of Executive Council weresatisfied th at th e services of Shr i Rajendra Prasad and Dr. Manoranjan Mishra bediscontinued w it h effect from th e afte rnoon of 16h March 2012 on grounds ofmisconduct.12 10 3 The Executive Council t hereby directed the Sikkim UniversityRegistrar to discontinue th e services of the above two faculty members with theUniversity forthwith.12 10 4 Hon ble Members Prof. Kiran a tar and Prof . Atul Sa rma suggestedfor setting up of a Grievance redressal Cell in t he Unive rsity.The Executive Council unanimously at Its meeting of 16h March 2012 t horoughlydeliberated upon the representation dated 27th February 2012 signed by ShriRajendra ra sad, Shri Shailendra Kr. M ishra, Shri Tapas Bayen, Shr i P.M. Sorel, Dr.Manoranjan Mish ra and Smt. Rinki 0 Kesharwani addressed to t he Members oft he Second Executive Council through t he Registrar, Sikkim University. After aprolonged deliberation, t he Executive Council was satisfied that a condign action

shall have to be take n against certain members of the faculty in th e best interestof the Sikkim University. The members of Executive Council were satisfied thatth e services of Shri Rajendra Prasad and Dr. Manoranjan Mishra shall have to bediscontinued with effect from the af ternoon of 16h March 2012 on grounds oimis ondu t

The Executive Council also directed the Sikkim Univers ity authority to issue theorder of removal of the above two members of faculty immediately.s


6/24

16

Signatures of th e M embers as attached and also of Dr. P. Tamang, Registrar,non-member .

In th e concludin g portion th e wo rd unanimously appears t o have beenstruck out by pen, and in th e last sentence t he wor d above w as also w ri tt en inpen.

As th e original Minutes we re never produced th e curiosi ty in th is regardremains unsatisfied to date.

The finding against th e complain ant s are serio us and attach stigma t oth em . No experience certificates have been issued also; these seriously obstructth e chances of good future employment, as per th e complainants. They are quiteright in th is regard .

These serious findings had such a cursory preliminary that any Lawyer orany public man with even a little kno wledge of th e prin ciples of natural justicewould find it shockin g, and I use, i think, in th e circum stances, a mild word .

The pre liminarie s were thes e. On 6 3 2012 the following ietter was issuedto Manoranjan and Rajendra in identical t erms.

The letter t o M anoranjan is set out below.Sikkim University 201l-12/4954 D TED; 6TH M ARCH 2012

ToDr. Ma noranj an Mishra ssistant Prof essorDepartment of Geography and Natural Resources ManagementSikkim University

6


7/24

17Sub: Explanation call for br each of privilege.Dear Dr. i shra

Two newspapers published f rom Gangtok Sikkim Now and amay Dainik published th e press release given by yo u o n 28hFebruary 2 12making fal se allegat ion s and insinuations against th e University and itsaut horities. This is a serious vi olation of both the basic norms of the Universityand code of conduct by you.

This show cause notice is issued to you asking you as to w hy action shouldbut be initiated against you for th is breach of privilege. University hereby asks yout o respond to th is notice wit hin 48 hrs of th e issue of th i s note failing whi chUniversity wil l be free to take any act ions against you .

This is issued with th e approva l of t he Vice Chancellor.

Yours faithfully

RegistrarThe Vice Chancellor ment ioned above was Lama. There is no doubt th at all t heseincidents took place at t he behest of Lama.

The reply sent by Man oranjan o n 8 3 12 is set out below. Rajendrasreply was in identical trm s.

7


8/24

18

Dated : 8th March 2012To,Dr. Jyoti TamangRegistrarSikkim UniversityGangtok, SikkimSubject: Reply to the letter No. Sikkim University/2011-12 95 Dated 6th March,2012.Dear Dr. TamangWish you a very happy, safe and colorful HolilWith my due regards, I want to inform you that show cause notice issued to meby your signature does not have authenticity. In case of academi c staff of th eUniversity, the Vice Chancellor is a competent authority to issue such kind ofnotice in wirting. This has been refl ected in para no. 26 1) the Statues ofUniversity, Sikkim University Act, 2006 . Para 26 1) says Where there is anallegation of misconduct against a teacher...the Vice Chancellor by order inwrit ing, place such teacher....under suspension and shall forthwith report to theExecutive Council the circum stances in which the order was made .

I also want to refer the para no 6 5) a) the Statues of University, SikkimUniversity Act . 2006, which clearly says the Registrar shall have power to takedisciplinary action against the emp loyees excluding t eachers and other academicstaff. This clearly shows th at the Registrar is not a competent authority to issueshow cause notice to the academic staff.


9/24

19Wit h my sincere regards.

Sincerely yours,Sd/-

(Manoranjan Mishra)ss istant Professor

Department of Geography andNatural Resources Management

Sikkim University

Aft e r t his came the Minutes of th e xecu tive Council in New Delhi and thef inding of miscondu ct.

Shocking indeed it is.At th e hearing of 5/ 9/ 2012 it t ranspired for t he f irst ti me th at Raje ndra had

given a copy of th eir letter of comp laint to the University date d 27/2/2012 to arepresentative of th e newspaper Sikkim Now at his residence at the 6t Mile.

At t he meet ing of 5/ 9/ 2012, t he learned Regis trar Dr. Tamang said that hewas contacted over th e phone by th e newspapers asking whether any pressre lease has been made by th e University. He answered in th e negati ve.

That items came out in th e newspa pers is a fact; th at t he University gave nopress release is also a fact; but t here is no thing, absolutely noth ing at all, to showth at on 16 3 2012 th e Executive Council at New Delhi had any mate rial before itto jump to the conclus ion th at the press releases were made by Rajendra.

The Order went against Rajendra and several others. There is st ill nomaterial to show that th e others were also invo lved in the press release.


10/24

The commission is not sitting in appeal over the decision of t he ExecutiveCouncil. But if findings are reached on no material at all, th e decision is vitiated sperverse nd discrimin tory

The finding of releases to Press by th e teachers was no more than a guesswork by the Executive Council on 16 /2012. It might have been a strong guessbut it was nothing more than a guess. The Executive Council was not betting on ahorse at the racing track. They were te rminat ing employments of serious teacherswith stigma to whom the profession of teaching is bread and butter.

Apparently, on 16 /2012 all signing members of the Executive Council ofthe i kkim University and also the learned Registrar were present in New Delhi;that might be so; from th e information received dur ing hearings it is clear thatLama travels a lot; the Commission has no quarrel with that .

The objection of the complainants raised on 8 2012 was very sound. Para26 1 of the Statues of th e University, which are a part of th e Sikkim UniversityAct ee Section 29 is as follows.

26 1 Where th ere is an allegation of misconduct against a teacher, a member ofthe academic staff or other employee of th e University, the Vice Chancellor, in thec se of the teacher or a member of th e academic sta ff and the authoritycompetent to appoint hereinafter referred to as the appo inting authority in thec se of other employee may, by order in writ ing, place such t eacher, member ofthe academic staff or other employee, as the case may be, under suspension andshall forthwith report to th e Executi ve Coun cil th e circumstances in which theorder was made:


11/24

I I IProvided that the Executi ve Counc il may, if it is of the opin ion, that the

circumstances of the case do not warrant the suspension of the teacher or amember of t he academic staff, revoke such order.

It is not th e Vice Chancellor but th e Executive Council that has the power toremove a teacher on th e ground of misconduct :-

Statutes 26 2Notw ithstanding anything contained in th e terms of t he cont ract of appointmentor any other t erms and conditions of service of th e employees, th e xecutiveCouncil in respect of te achers and other academic staff, and th e appointingauthority in respect of other employees shall have t he power t o remove ateacher or a member of th e academic staff or oth er employee, as the case maybe, on grounds of misconduct .

No doubt the Executive Council gave its f inding on 16/ 3/ 2012 but the showcause noti ce could not be issued by any aut hority ot her t han the ExecutiveCouncil. The disciplin ary authority itself has to issue the show cause unless thereis some othe r specific ru le. There is none here.

Lama as Vice Chancellor could place th e complainant s under suspensionand report to t he Execut ive Council but he did not do that .

He instructed th e Reg ist rar to w rite th e let ter of 6 3/ 2012 as if he werehimself the Executive Counci l.

This is to tally outside th e Statues. Sec 12 3 of th e Sikkim University Actwas relied upon by Mr Thapa.


12/24

r 1It is set out below.

Section 12 (3) The Vice Chancellor may, if he is of t he opi nion that immed iate ction n ss ryon ny m tter exerise ny pow er confe rred on ny uthorityof t he University by or under this Act and shall report to such author ity at its nextmeeting th e action taken by him on such mat ter :

Provided that if th e authority concerned is of the opinion th at such actionought not to have been taken, it may refer t he matter to th e Visitor whosedecision thereon shall be final:

Provided further that any person In th e service of the University who isaggrieved by the act ion taken by the Vice Chancellor under thi s sub-section shallhave the right t o represent against such act ion to the Executive Council withinthree months from the date on which decision on such act ion is communicated tohim and thereupon th e Executive Council may conf irm, modify or reverse theaction taken by t he Vice Chancellor.

There is no opinion of Lama on record th at immediate act ion is necessary.Though Lama now appears to have been th e sole st r ing puller behind everybody,the show ca use not ice of 6 3 2 12 is not ever. issued by Lama It is issued by theReg istrar, w ith the approval of the Vice Chancellor and th at too is stated by theRegistrar, not t he Vice Chancellor. The complain ants' answer dated 8 3 2012

t remphasized the Statutes 26 1 where th e suspensionj 0f teachers has beenpermitted to be issued by the Vice Chancello r alone, and, t hat too by order inwriting . The show cause wou ld have to be issued by th e ultimate disciplinaryauthor ity, i.e., t he Executive Council, but surely th e Registrar w ith the purported


13/24

unsigned approval of th e Vice h ancellor could do no such thing. Everything wasdone autocratically, with rules made out of the head instantaneously.

j { ; ; J ~ . _ { ~This sub-section was.not invoked by Lama. In any event, if he had made a./\suspension and reported the matter to the Executive Council under the Statutes261 no fu rther urgency or emergency could remain . The argument by thelearned Counsel does not fi t the facts of the case.

When th e claim ants had raised a good legal issue, the Executi ve Councilwas outside it s powers to give no answer to th at and enter a finding withoutproof of a single fact.

No opportunity was given to the claimants to answer any fact estab lishedbefore th e xecu t ive Council.

You have made leaks t o this paper and this paper is a mere allegation in thelet ter of 6 3 2012 without any facts to be answered by the claimants. Even thatallegation is not squarely made out. They we re ent it led to rem ain silent andexpect a hearing w here th e fact of leakage would be established in their presenceand against them. (The phrases serious vio lat ion and b reach of privil ege arewithout specific particulars, and vague.)

Then they would have to rebut those, ere is the point furth er, and even cr-th en, th at the leakage to papers by them wa s't even alleged clearly in the show

, cause notice. The fact is, nothing was solid by, known to the university on,6 3 2 12 when the show cause was hastily issued.

Furthermore, nothing has been shown to establish that merely the giving ofa com plaint let ter, wr it te n to the University by several teachers, to th e press also,13


14/24

constitutes misconduct in itself. Wheth er t he let ter contain ed fa lse allegations ornot is yet nother m tter on which he ring w s mustbefore entering of afi nding of misconduct. This matter of pur ported ly illegal appo intmentsment ioned in th e complaint letter of 27/2 / 2012 is now su b judice in th e abovement ioned Writ .

The number of hearin gs which has taken place before the Commissionincluding today is six. Fro m the side of the University although no attendance hastaken place yesterday and today t here were many in attendance on the otherdays. Lama also came one day. It was Lama who sent th e first rep ly to thecompla int after it was entertained by th e Commission and noti ce given t o t heUniversity. That letter is dated 30/ 3/ 2012 and it was f orwarded first in photocopyand then in th e or iginal. This was because Lama was in Delhi t oo. He could notattend more t han once may be because of his tours of w hich Pakistan and Chinaw ere mentioned t o t he Commission at different t imes

The said ietter of Lama is reproduced below.

VCO/SU/OTHS126

Hon bl e Just ice Shri A. N. RayCh airpersonSikkim State Human Rights CommissionBungalow No VIP Colo nyPO Ra jbh avanGangtok - 737101

30 M RC H 2012


15/24

r l

Hon ble Just ice Sh ri Just ice A. N. Ray,Thank yo u very much fo r yo ur lett er dated Ref83/SHRC/GOS/2012 DATED 28March 2012.The Univer sit y w ould like t o make fo llowin g submissions before your augustoffi ce.

1. All th e appoint ments have been don e as per t he no rm s prescribed by t heSik ki m University Act , 200 6 and accordi ng to th e decisions ta ken by th eExecuti ve Council Executive Council), und er sect io n 5 vi) of th e SikkimUniversity Act, 2006. The Executive Council is th e highest decision makingbod y of th e Universit y . This body consist s of mo st eminent academics,public figures and professionals in th e country . Each and every process ofth e recru itment has gone t hrough both t he Academic and Executi ve Councilof th e University and has been duly app rove d. It is humbly subm itted tha tth e Execut ive Council Execut ive Council) has met at least 12 ti mes during56 months since t he inception of th e University.

It is hum bly submitt ed t hat from th e very inception of th e Universit y,Execut ive Council Executi ve Council ) has,. t he Secreta ry, Hum an ResourcesDevelop ment Department, Govern ment of Sikkim as a member.2. Regarding th e allegati on of w ithho lding salaries of some of th e f aculty

mem ers t he under signed begs to subm it th at it w as do ne because thesa id faculty members had sto pped t aking classes w hich was adverselyf fecti ng th e st ude nts in th e Universit y.

3. It is hum bly submitted th at in cases of f acult y membe rs w ho we reappo inted on contractual basis and once th eir term of cont ract is over th ey


16/24

need to com pulsorily get clearance from var ious sections of t he Universitybefo re any dues to th em including salaries are released.

4. It is humbl y submitte d th at regarding the decisions t o discontinue with theservices of Shri Rajendra Prasad and Dr. Manoranjan Mohanty wereunanimously taken by th e Executive Council meeting held on 16 March,2 1 2

5 t is humbly submitted that th e Vice Chancello r has never th reatened anyone including his ow n coll eagues, staff members, fam ily members andpublic at large.

6 Since th e undersigned is out of station on an important ssignment wit hth e UPSC, Government of India in New Delhi, we wou ld like to seekcondonation from your august office for send ing a sc nned copy of thisletter.

Sd -Mahendra P Lama

The idea in paragraph 1 t hat the Executive Council had a member fromGovern ment of Sikkim, and thi s was given in bold type, is one w ithout muchrelevance. Whether m had good relationship with t he Government of Sikkimor not does not matter here. That the University faced several demonstrationsduring his t enure is equally irrelevant here. The Government of Sikkim is not thecomp lainant. W rongfully term inated teachers are.

t was correct ly menti oned in th e letter sent , th at in t hese matters, t heExecutive Council is the highest body. But the highest body has to act and has to16


17/24

t ~

be approa ched in the manner prescribed in th e Act in the Statute. In aconstitut ionally democratic set- up, each and everybody and ever y authority hasto funct io n wi thin th e fou r corners of it s perm ission and ju risdict ion. Otherwise,its action is vitiated irrespective of th e height of the body in th e powe r hierarchy.

In t he meeting l ama said that the terminated employees are notpermanent emp loyees. They have no Provident Fund. The contract ofem ployme nt was also over on 27 2 2012 for Shailendra M ishra and Tapas Sain.Thus, t he pet it io n w as not a good one.

Lama was in error

Whether perma nent employee o r t eacher or contractual employee orteacher, every servant of a public aut ho rity has protection of both contract andstatu s. This has been decided in many cases starting decades ago with Dhingrascase

What th e statu s of th e public servant is, has received many expositionsjudicially. t is today clear Indian l aw th at th e employment of a pub lic servantcannot be terminated w ith imputation of misconduct without observing the rulesof natura l justice. This clear ly makes the complaint of Rajendra r s d and

M anoranjan Mishra enterta inable. As regards Shailendra Mishra and Tapas Sain,th eir names are ment ioned in the M inutes of th e Executive Councii indicati ng thatthey were all guilty of defami ng the University on baseless ground s and thatpunitive condign action shail have to be taken against them They have also notbeen issued experience cert ificates yet, though they have found emp loyment.


18/24

118

Therefore, Shailendra Mishra and Tapas Bain suffe red imput tion andattachment of st igma although thei r t erm of employment being over, th ey couldnot be te rminated on those grounds once again.The foll owing makes the matte r more certain.

Sec 2k) of th e Sikkim University Act is as fol lows:-2. k) employee means any person appo inted by the Univers ity and includesteachers and other sta ff of the University.

As per the above def init ion all four aggrieved persons were teachers, sincethey had been appointed by th e University in whatever manner might th at havebeen.

Ms. Bhtt acharjee, th e learned second Advocate on behalf of th e Universitywho could not attend t his t ime due to illness, submitted on th e last occasion,although, I th ought a lit t le hesitantly, th t i) the present complaint is not with int he ju risdiction of t he Human ight s Commission to entert ain and ii in any eventt he complainants could and shou ld have fil ed a rit Petit ion in the High Courtinstead.

The answe rs to these arguments are simple. Under th e Human Rights Act of1993, Human ight s is defined as follows in Sec 2 d)

2. d) human rights means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignityof the individual guaranteed by the Const itution or embodied in the Internationalovenants and enfo rceable by courts in India;

8 r. ..\


19/24

The right to equali ty men tioned in the Section is nothing but Article 14Proceeding against anybody contra ry to Law, proceeding aga inst anybody inbreach of the r ules of natural j ust ice are all meting out unequa l treatment andt herefore contrary to rticle 14. Of course, all the f our petition ers whethersignatory or not , are all undisputed citizens of India.

As regards filing of a Wr it, the petitioners had a choice of fo rum. It is we llknown law that t he com plainant can make his choice w here t w o forums areavailable, like say if a suit can be fi led in t w o courts in t w o areas, the plainti ff canchoose on e of the t wo.

In a W rit Peti tion the petitioners, if successful, would get an enforcea bleorder, subject to appeal etc. Before t he Commission the petitioners, even ifsuccess ful, get merely a recommendati on as per ec 18 of the 1993 Act.

If the petitioners choose t o get t he recommendation f irst, they are entitledto do so. Approaching th e Comm ission and getting a recommendation does notdebar a pet itioner from t aking fu t ur e steps for protect io n and enfo rcement oftheir interest and rights in accordance w ith law if t hey should fi nd that necessary.The peti t ioners here wi ll be naturally free in that regard, if need should arise.

Here the petit ion ers ask f or: i) Tw o mon ths w it h held salary fo r Rajendra Prasad and M anoranjan

M ishra and one month s wi thheld salary of Shailendra M ishra and TapasBain.

ii) xperience certificate on the basis th at t he contractual employmentswere duly served out; that Shai lend ra M ishra and Tapas Bain did not get


20/24

2

2

the certificates, gives them additional Locus Standi before theComm ission, as already stated.

iii Compensation, about which I shall d iscuss separately.

There is absolut ely nothing which prevents th e University immediately frompaying the improperly withheld salaries. Any delay in th is matter wi ll be adownright matter of shame.

Both in the f irst letter of Lama 3 32 12 and in arguments made by rThapa a red herring was dragged by saying that t he pet it ioners before gettingtheir salary need compulsorily to get clearance from vario us sections of theUniversity. Yet another red herring was produced in the submission of thelearned Counsel, Mr . Thapa but not in the let ter of Lama th at th e pet itioners

have not retu rned University art icles like stationary, compute rs etc.,These are absolutely baseless imputations against t he petit ioners. No

deta ils of any particular clearance or any part icular stat ionery, let alone anycomputer, was ever available to the Comm ission.

I am greatly surprised that there is no record on paper showing that someauthority of th e University or some office, holder ever advised Lama not tofight t he petitioners illegally and groundlessly. But not all advice t hat was givento Lama by everybody can be known to th e Commission.

Regarding the claim for compensation, th e Commission has power under ec 18 to recommend to the concerned authorit y to make payment ofcompens tion or d m ges

The Commission can take such further action as it may feel fit and thi sincludes the power to recommend payment of compe nsation by any person in


21/24

2

i . I 2r yauthor ity at the material t ime. For example, if it is found t hat the whole gamewas played by Lama and the rest of th e University was led by him in thismatter, th en appropriate compensati on, if any, can be di rected to be paid byLama personally. In fact th is is what I propose to do as Lama has been theprinc ipal figure contes ting the petitioners by using his author ity and power.

What compe nsat ion to ord er payment of? Withheld s lary is not reallycompensation but satisfact ion of a debt th at t he Universit y should dischargefrom its own resources immediately. An argument was light ly aired during Mr.Thapas appearance t hat classes were not taken to the end by Rajendra Prasadand Manorajna n M ishra; th is is as unsubstantiated before th e Commission asthe red herring of th e clearances from var ious departments. Thus, experiencecertificates, th e University and it s concerned offi ce bearers shouldimmediately issue. This is also not compensat ion. The on ly point to clarify inregard to experience cert if icate is th at, fo r Rajendra Prasad and ManoranjanMishra, t he period should cover upto 31 3 2012 since they we re preventedillegally and against th eir w ill from f unctioning as teachers f rom 16/ 3/ 2012.

The heads of compensation mentioned are:(a) Not getting employment t il l date because of absence of experience

certif icate and because of stigma. jendra Prasad and Manoranjan Mlshraclaimed compensation at around s . 40,000 per month which was theirtake home salary in March 2012. Shailendra Mishra and Tapas Bain havefound employment , however, as already stated.

(b) Compensat ion for cost of t ravel.(c) Counsel s fees which are also mentioned.(d) Mental torture and harassment for wh ich a neat sum of Rs. 5 lakh claimed.


22/24

p

Indeed some compensation is due. April to Septem ber is six months. Even ifthe teachers would not have found employment in any event for three monthsth ey have lost at least Rs. 1 00000 each because of ill egal treatment by Lamaasth ey have been unemployed the who le of th e six months.

Someth ing for costs compensation for harassment for t he period unti l now isalso to be given. A reasonable assessment is t o be made. Because in th eCommission the st rength of th e recommendat ion is fou nded not uponcompulsive authority but upon the dem ocratic pillars of reasonableness correctsetting out of fa cts and sufficiently persuasive quality of analysis in therecommend ing orde r. Bearing th ese factors in mind I would award for coststravel and harassment Rs. 20 000 each to Rajendra Prasad and ManoranjanMish ra and Rs. 2000 each to Shailendra Mish ra and Tapas Bain who attendedth e hearing on ly one day unlike Ra jend ra Prasad and Manora njan Mishra whohave been at it all th e time.

The recommendations of t he Commission are as fo llows :I. The Sikkim University it s Executi ve Council and all concerned office

bearers employees and staff do forthwi th cancel th e proceed ings anddecisions of Executive Council dated 16/ 3/ 2012 New Delhi as it is aproduct of ill egal ini tiation of proceedings and was reached in breach ofthe rules of natural justice.

II. Sikk im University it s Execut ive ouncil and all concerned office bearersand employee s do pay fort hw ith:a. Rajendra Prasad Rs 75 400 being his illegally w ithheld salary for

February and March 2012.


23/243

123

b. Manoranjan Mishra Rs. 77268/ being his illegally w ithheld sa lary fo rFebruary and March 2012.

c. Shailendra M ishra Rs 36252- being his illegally wit hheld sa lary forFebruary 2012.

d. Tapas Bain Rs. 35 552/ being his illegally withheld salary for February2012.

The Sikkim University its Executi ve Council and all it s concerned officebearers and emp loyees do forthwith issue:a. Exper ience Certi ficate to Rajendra Prasad and Manoranjan Mishra for

th eir full contractual period upto 31/3 /2012.b. Experience Certificate to Shailendra M ishra and Tapas Bain for their

ful l contractual period upto 27/2 /2012.

V Mahendra P Lama do persona lly pa ut of his own fundscompensat ion for illegal act ions initiated and persisted in by him to theprejudice and loss of t he pet itioners to the extent of Rs . 2 44 000/ inthe fo llowing breakup:a. Rs. 120000/- forthwith to Rajendra Prasad.b. Rs. 120 000/ forthwith to Manoranjan Mishra.c. Rs 2000/ forthw ith to Shailendra M ishra.d. Rs 2000/- forthwith to Tapas Bain.

As security for due payment by Mahendra P. Lama th e Sikkim Universityits xecutive Council and all its off ice bearers and emp loyees do


24/24

24

withho ld f ro m t he current and future dues if any Mah endra P Lamafrom th e University a sum of Rs. 2 44 000/ and that t hey do make thepayments as recommended in item IV above to th e persons ment ionedunless Lama makes fu ll and complete payment by 15112 12.

Let copies of thi s recommendat ion order be sent to t he 5ikkim Universitythrough the learned Registrar th ereof and also to Mahe ndra P. Lamapersonally as th ere are recommendations for him alone and also t o the hiefSecretary of the Government of Sikkim fo r information of the StateGovernment and especially of its offices of Hom e and Law Justice. A copy bealso sent to Rajendra Prasad on behalf of all the complainant s.

24

Documents

Sikkim Human Rights Commission Copy - I