D. K. Nagar v. University of Rajasthan — 1993 DIGILAW 342 (RAJ)

Honble SlNGHAL, J.—The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 4/11-1-1993, by which he has been reverted on the post of Assistant Professor from the post of Assistant. (2) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor vide order dated 31.10.1980 on temporary basis and he joined the said post of 1.11.1980. The petitioner was confirmed by order dated 28.1.1986 w.e.f. 9.11.1985. (3) The petitioner entered into a contract for faculty employment from Bowling Green State University, Ohio for the academic year 19.8.1987 to 18.5.1988 for the rank of Post Doctoral Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics & Statistics. An application for sanction of study leave was submitted by the petitioner. The study leave was granted for a period of six months on full pay from 1.8.1987 under rule 37(viii)(a)(i) of the Ordinance 358. (4) An application dated 4.02.1988 was sent by he petitioner informing that he is doing his Post Doctoral research work with Dr. A.K. Gupta, Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, U.S.A. Since the research was to continue for one more year, extension for study leave for another year i.e. for the Session 1988-89 was requested. In the mean-time, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Associate Professor of Statistics on 23.04.1988 on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Rajasthan University teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974, which was approved by the Syndicate. The selection and appointment was subject to various conditions mentioned in the said letter dated 23.04.1988. In the said order, besides other conditions, it was provided that the appointment is on probation for one year. During the period, it was to be terminated on one months notice on either side. The petitioner submitted the joining report on 12.05.1988. (5) The study leave in full pay was further extended from 1.02.1988 to 12.05.1988 vide order dated 25.05.1988. It is submitted that another contract for faculty employment dated 27.04.1988 was entered into for the period 17.8.88 to 17.5.89. The total salary to be paid for the above period was 18,000 $. The petitioner submitted the joining report on 12.05.1988. (5) The study leave in full pay was further extended from 1.02.1988 to 12.05.1988 vide order dated 25.05.1988. It is submitted that another contract for faculty employment dated 27.04.1988 was entered into for the period 17.8.88 to 17.5.89. The total salary to be paid for the above period was 18,000 $. An application dated 8.06.1988 was submitted mentioning that the petitioner was sanctioned study leave for the Session 1987-88 to do Post Doctoral work at Bowling Green State University and he intended to continue his post doctoral work for one more year. Since the work was not complete, request was made to sanction leave admissible under the Rules for one more year for the Session of 1988-89. Leave for 3 months was granted under Rule 32(iii)(a) of Ordinance 358 without pay and it was informed that the leave applied for by him for one year is not admissible under the Rules. The petitioner was directed to furnish documentary evidence about his study leave availed earlier. The petitioner has alleged that a new contract dated 27.04.1988 was in the knowledge of the respondent arid no fact was concealed. A letter of request dated 12.8.88 was also sent from Bowling Green State University for sanction of leave for the Session 1988.89. A telegram dated 17.10.1988 accompanied by a letter was also sent by the petitioner for extension of leave. In the letter sent by the petitioner dated 17.10.1988, it was acknowledged that he was asked to furnish documentary evidence in respect of study leave availed earlier. The petitioner continued his work without there being any sanction and sent a telegram on 21.12.1988. A latter was written by the Registrar, University of Rajasthan to the petitioner on 30.12.1988 /2.1.1989 in response to the telegram dated 21.12.1988 that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 30.12.1988 has not sanctioned any kind of leave and the leave already sanctioned has lapsed on 27.04.1988. The petitioner was treated absent from duty from 28.10.1988 in terms of Rule 18 of Ordinance 358. The petitioner was required to submit a certificate from the Chancellor, Bowling Green State University Ohio or the Board of Regent of that University to the effect that the was not in employment of that University during the period of study leave i.e. 1.8.87 to 11.5.88, failing which disciplinary action was proposed to be taken. The petitioner was required to submit a certificate from the Chancellor, Bowling Green State University Ohio or the Board of Regent of that University to the effect that the was not in employment of that University during the period of study leave i.e. 1.8.87 to 11.5.88, failing which disciplinary action was proposed to be taken. The reply was submitted on 9.01.1989 in which the petitioner has offerred to refund the amount of salary which was received by him during the period of study leave and sought six week time to submit reply. It was mentioned that there was a direction from the respondent to the Head of the Department of Statistics and the Principal of Maharaja College not to permit the petitioner to join the duty without permission of the Vice Chancellor and such endorsement was not existing in the copy of the letter given to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 12.01.1989, the petitioner was informed that he must clearly state as to whether he wishes to join the duty and if so, then an under-taking in writing should be given that you would subject yourself to the decision of the Syndicate with regard to your leave matters as well as your absence from duty after 27.10.1988. Without complying with the letter, the petitioner approached this Court and a writ petition, bearing No. 451/89 was filed. (6) In the said writ petition, the orders dated 2.1.1989 and 12.1.1989 were challenged and it was held by this Court that the authorities have a right to proceed with the matter in accordance with the rules and this court has no jurisdiction to say that do not proceed with the enquiry, if any pending against the petitioner. In this case no enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and only on the apprehension that because of not joining the duty, disciplinary action may be taken against him, the petitioner has rushed to the court and got stay order. The writ petition was held to be pre-mature. A review petition was also submitted, which was decided on 10.9.1991. (7) The petitioner thereafter again returned back to Ohio and completed his assignment. On return he has submitted the joining report on 18.05.1989 and he was not allowed to join. The writ petition was held to be pre-mature. A review petition was also submitted, which was decided on 10.9.1991. (7) The petitioner thereafter again returned back to Ohio and completed his assignment. On return he has submitted the joining report on 18.05.1989 and he was not allowed to join. A representation was submitted on 5.09.1991 to the Vice Chancellor and ultimately, a letter dated 17.2.1993 (Exhibit-18) was written to the Registrar that in accordance with the Syndicate Resolution No. 11 dated 18.1.1992 the petitioner under-takes to abide by the decision of the Syndicate. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 6/21.3.1992 that the letter received on 8.02.1992 is not in consonance with the Resolution passed by the Syndicate on 18.1.1992 and, therefore, he was requested to send an affidavit in terms of resolution No. 15 dated 30.12.1988. The petitioner in his letter dated 21.05.1992 has reproduced the submissions of Mr. Sharma as mentioned in the judgment and on the basis of that he submitted that the joining report dated 18.05.1989 has already been submitted and, therefore, he should be paid arrears of salary. Another letter dated 22.4.1992 was also submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 23/25.11.1992 that he has not appeared before the Committee on 20.11.1992 at 3.00 PM in the V.C. Secretariat, University Campus, Jaipur and the next meeting to review the case and recommend the action for consideration of the Syndicate will be held on 1.12.1992. He was informed that the Committee has desired that an opportunity for personal hearing be given to him and in case he does not appear, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter. Instead of appearing on 1.12.1992, a letter was written on 30.11.1992 by the petitioner to the Registrar that for what reason the Committee has been formed and who are the members of the Committee and he has not received copy of the resolution No. 16. Ultimately, the Syndicate reviewed the whole position and recommended that the petitioner who was appointed as Associate Professor in Statistics on probation be reverted to" the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 28.10.1988, the date from which he has been treated as wilfully absent from duty as it was the Syndicates resolution No.15 dated 30.12.1988. Ultimately, the Syndicate reviewed the whole position and recommended that the petitioner who was appointed as Associate Professor in Statistics on probation be reverted to" the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 28.10.1988, the date from which he has been treated as wilfully absent from duty as it was the Syndicates resolution No.15 dated 30.12.1988. It was further resolved that the period of absence from duty has been treated as on leave without pay w.e.f. 28.10.1988 till he resumes his duty as Assistant Professor in Statistics. It is this order, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. (8) It has been submitted that he was neither given the charge sheet nor any reply was asked from the petitioner and he was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and reversion with retrospective effect is an arbitrary action. The petitioner was not allowed to join immediately on return from abroad. The allegations of mala fides have also been raised but neither the name of any person or the manner or circumstances under which the said order was passed mala fidely, have been explained nor proved. It has also been submitted that the other teachers here-not been given such harash treatment and there is discrimination in the matter of punishment. The case of the respondent in not allowing him to join on the pretext of not submitting the affidavit was entirely illegal. (9) The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1), wherein it has been held that non furnishing of copy of enquiry report to the delinquent would be violative of the principles of natural justice, rendering the final order invalid. I may mention that this judgment has its application prospectively and as would be evident from the subsequent paras hereinafter that there was not enquiry report in the disciplinary enquiry which was initiated. The judgment cited above has no application. Against the proposed action, an opportunity was given to the petitioner but he has not availed it to appear before the Committee. (10) Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this court in State of Rajasthan vs. Beni Prasad Sharma (2), wherein the requirement of obtaining of minimum 35% marks in the personality and viva voce examination separately for candidates of general category for being included in the list of selected candidates for any service was declared invalid. (10) Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this court in State of Rajasthan vs. Beni Prasad Sharma (2), wherein the requirement of obtaining of minimum 35% marks in the personality and viva voce examination separately for candidates of general category for being included in the list of selected candidates for any service was declared invalid. It was directed that if any candidate has already been appointed and is not included in the fresh select list to be prepared on the basis of the directions given by this Court, then he should be continued and absorbed in the service by creating, if necessary, the requisite number of additional vacancies in that service needed for this purpose. The facts of this case have no application to the present case, inasmuch as the validity of any rules has not been examined, as a result of which the candidature of any person already selected has to be examined. The petitioner was appointed on probation and the point which has to be considered is whether a probationer could be reverted to the post which he was holding before appointment on probation. (11) Another judgment of Mohan Lal Tiwari vs. Panchayat Samiti Bhadara (3) has also been relied upon where in it has been held that during the suspension if subsistence allowance is not paid to the delinquent employee and he is unable to face the enquiry on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, the enquiry could be vitiated and the order of punishment being vitiated would be against the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the present matter, the petitioner was not suspended and there was no question of any subsistence allowance, and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case, (12) Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in Smt. Rita Sharma vs. University of Rajasthan (4), in which it was held that if the petitioner was provisionally admitted in the correspondence course for B.Ed. and was allowed to fill-in the form to appear in the examination and he appeared in the examination, then the equities are in her favour and the result should be declared. This judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner and has no application to the facts of the present case. and was allowed to fill-in the form to appear in the examination and he appeared in the examination, then the equities are in her favour and the result should be declared. This judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner and has no application to the facts of the present case. (13) Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Manoj Kumar vs. Co-ordinator, A.C.M.N.R. Engg. College (5). In this case the petitioner was informed that for the first time at the time of interview that he has not obtained 55% marks in the Intermediate Examination whereas no such information was given to the petitioner or to any other candidate that the candidates were eligible to appear in B. Arch. Course only if they have obtained 55% marks in the Intermediate Examination with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. It was held that equitable estoppel is applicable and it was no longer open to deny at subsequent stage when the petitioner appeared for interview and the petitioner could not be selected as he did not secure 55% marks in the Intermediate examination. It is further observed that it was open to the Admission Committee or other respondents to have examined the details of the marks obtained by the petitioner in I.Sc. B.Sc. Examination and to ascertain it at that stage as to whether the petitioner could be eligible for the said examination or not. The application of equitable doctrine cannot be made in the present case as the petitioner has executed a bond and under-taken to abide by the rules and regulations framed by the University and to serve the University on the expiry of study leave and will not be entitled to prolong the stay without permission of the Vice Chancellor under any circumstances. It is mentioned in the bond that if the teacher does not report himself on duty on the expiry of study leave unless otherwise permitted by the University to join later or fails to comply with the agreement and the rules made by the University from time to time, the University at its discretion can terminate the services of the teacher and the teacher would be liable to return the advance amount to the University with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation to the University for the loss suffered. (14) Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (6), wherein it has been held that the powers which vest in the authority under the Statute or the Rules should be exercised within reasonable time, else the exercise of powers can be found to be vitiated on the ground that it has been exercised in an unreasonable manner after long lapse of time. In this case final order of punishment was passed on 20.5.1969. The petitioner was not served with any show cause notice up to September, 1976 and he was not aware for 9 years as to the action initiated against him for enhancement of punishment. It was held that it is most unreasonable to enhance the penalty after a lapse of 9 years, more particularly, for a period of 7 years no notice was served on the petitioner. The judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. (15) Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ghanshyam Singh vs. State of M.P. (7), wherein the issue regarding paucity of funds resulting from non-payment of subsistence allowance was involved and the delinquent officer was unable to attend the enquiry and it was held that the was invalid. This case also has no application to the facts of the present case. (16) On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that the petitioner has applied for study leave, in which he entered into an agreement stipulating that if he does not report himself for duty on the expiry of study leave unless otherwise permitted by the University enquiry is at its discretion to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was also further liable to return the amount advanced to him along with compensation as specified in the said agreement. It has further been stated that the petitioner was under bond obligation up to 11.03.1989 under Rule 37(II)(ii) of the Ordinance 358 and, therefore, he was not entitled for any leave unless he fulfilled the bond obligation or refunded the whole amount paid to him during the study leave i.e. 9 months and 11 days. The Syndicate vide its resolution No. 16 dated 2.07.1988 appointed the Fact Finding Committee consisting of Prof. S. Lokanathan, Convenor, Prof. A.S. Kapoor and Prof M.C. Khandelwal. The Syndicate vide its resolution No. 16 dated 2.07.1988 appointed the Fact Finding Committee consisting of Prof. S. Lokanathan, Convenor, Prof. A.S. Kapoor and Prof M.C. Khandelwal. The Fact Finding Committee granted leave without pay for 3 months which was availed from 28.07.1988 to 27.10.1988. It is submitted that the petitioner was on probation as Associate Professor and had hardly worked on the said post on account of University being closed for summer vacations during the period from 1.06.1988 to 31.07.1988. When the study leave expired on 28.10.1988 there he was under an obligation to join the University, The matter of the petitioner with regard to letter dated 12.08.1988 was placed before the Fact Finding Committee in its meeting held on 30.12.1988. The Syndicate was not satisfied that the petitioners assignment in the aforesaid University of Ohio was of Post Doctoral Fellowship and not the faculty employment as the letter was not from the competent authority as desired by the Syndicate. The Syndicate did not grant any study leave and required that the petitioner be informed that his absence from 20.10.1988 would be treated as wilful absence in terms of Rule 18 of Ordinance 358. The petitioner was also required by the Syndicate to submit a certificate from the Vice Chancellor of Bowling Green State University or the Board of Regent of that University that he was not in employment of that University during the period he availed study leave from 1.8.1987 to 11.05.1988. It was also made clear to him that if he fails to submit the certificate he would be liable to disciplinary action as per rules. In pursuance of the decision of the Syndicate, a registered letter was sent to the petitioner on 2.1.1989 with regard to the decision, of the Syndicate. The required certificate was not produced by the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the garb of study leave the petitioner has entered into a contract for employment and therefore, he offerred repayment of salary received by him. The petitioner has proceeded to Ohio University again inspite of the fact that leave was not granted to him and have not complied with the directions of the Syndicate. It is also submitted that in the garb of study leave the petitioner has entered into a contract for employment and therefore, he offerred repayment of salary received by him. The petitioner has proceeded to Ohio University again inspite of the fact that leave was not granted to him and have not complied with the directions of the Syndicate. It is also submitted that no action was taken against the petitioner on account of the stay granted in Writ Petition No. 451/89 and the Resolution No. 11 dated 11.1.1992 was passed at the instance of the petitioner on the request being made to Shri Kali Charan Sarraf, Member, Syndicate. Copy of the letter No. 691/91 dated 4.10.91 which was received from Shri Kali Charan Sarraf has also been submitted along with the reply. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 9.06.1992 passed Resolution No. 7 in which representation dated 11.05.1992 of the petitioner was duly considered by the Syndicate and a Committee consisting of Prof. B.L. Verma Convenor, Dr. Anil Mathur and Dr. Prakesh Chaturvedi to review the whole situation was formed. The Committee took a final decision as the petitioner failed to appear before the Committee. It was on the request of the petitioner and an under-taking to the effect that he will be bound by the decision of the Syndicate that the meeting was convened and the petitioner failed to appear on 20.11.1992 and, therefore, another opportunity was given for 1.12.1992, on which date also the petitioner has not appeared. The said Committee and the Syndicate have gone through all details and record pertaining to the petitioner and the recommendations were based on the detailed analysis of the facts of the case. (17) I have considered over the matter. In the earlier Writ Petition No. 451/89, it was prayed that the orders dated 30.12.1988, 2.1.1989 and 12.1.1989 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the University be directed not to take any action to the petitioners prejudice in this matter and allow the petitioner to complete the contract of faculty employment till the end of May, 1989 at Bowling Green State University, Ohio. This writ petition was filed on 24.1.1989. This writ petition was filed on 24.1.1989. In the letter dated 30.12.1988 it was mentioned that since leave has not been sanctioned, the petitioner is treated as wilfully absent w.e.f. 28.10.1988 in terms of Rule 18 of Ordinance 358 and in the letter dated 12.1.1989 the petitioner was asked to state clearly as to whether he wants to join duties of the University or not. An stay order was granted by this court on 24.01.1989 and the respondents were restrained to pass any prejudicial order till further orders. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 24.01.1991 and till then the stay order remained operative. While disposing of the writ petition, it was observed by this court that the writ petition with regard to enquiry is pre-mature since no enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and it is only on the apprehension an for the reason of not joining the duty, writ petition has been filed. Regarding the application dated 17th October submitted by the petitioner and the subsequent telegram dated 21.12.1988, it was observed by this Court that the same were considered by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 30.12.1988 and the petitioner was intimated by the Registrar of the decision of the Syndicate vide letter dated 2.01.1989 and thus the application remained pending for about 2 months. In these circumstances, it was observed that it will not be out of place to mention here that whatever may be the circumstances, now it will be in the interest of all concerned to amicably settle the matter out of court so that the University may not suffer because of the mistake committed by its officers and the petitioner should also compensate the University in one way or the other for continuing his studies without permission of the University. In the light of the above observations, the Deputy Registrar of the University was asked whether the matter could be amicably settled and it was informed that because of the decision of the Syndicate the Vice Chancellor has neither power nor is in a position to settle the matter amicably. The matter is now, therefore, considered on its merit. In the light of the above observations, the Deputy Registrar of the University was asked whether the matter could be amicably settled and it was informed that because of the decision of the Syndicate the Vice Chancellor has neither power nor is in a position to settle the matter amicably. The matter is now, therefore, considered on its merit. (18) From the documents, which have been submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition and the file of the respondent, which has been produced for perusal of this court, it is evident that sanction of leave was granted as study leave for post doctoral work. A copy of the contract entered into with Bowling Green State University, Ohio, which has been placed on record, shows that it was a contract for faculty employment and the terms and conditions of employment were duly enumerated therein. It was not for study leave and I am of the view that the respondents have been completely negligent in initially granting leave with pay on the ground of study leave, when it was not the study leave. (19) The petitioner submitted a letter dated 16.06.1987 for sanction of study leave for the Session 1987-88, besides the applications, which were submitted through Principal, Maharaja College. A copy of post doctoral assignment is also alleged to have been submitted along with the said application. The Study Leave Committee in its meeting held on 1.07.1987 has sanctioned the leave to the petitioner for six months as study leave on full pay for doing post doctoral work. The bond on the non-judicial stamp of Rs. 5/- was also executed by the petitioner, wherein it was specifically mentioned that he is proceeding on study leave and he will abide by the rules and regulations framed by the University as in force at the time of grant of study leave and he under takes to serve the University on the expiry of study leave atleast for 10 months or equivalent to leave period. It was one of the conditions of the bond that he will not be entitled to prolong the stay without permission of the Vice Chancellor under any circumstances and if he does not report himself on duty after expiry of study leave, then unless otherwise permitted by the University to join later, the services of the petitioner could be terminated. It was one of the conditions of the bond that he will not be entitled to prolong the stay without permission of the Vice Chancellor under any circumstances and if he does not report himself on duty after expiry of study leave, then unless otherwise permitted by the University to join later, the services of the petitioner could be terminated. The petitioner thereafter, wrote to the Vice Chancellor on 4.2.1988 for further extension of his study leave. This letter was forwarded by the Head of the Department on 6.04.1988 and the Vice Chancellor thereupon ordered to refer the matter to the Study Leave Committee on 15.4.1988. The Study Leave Committee in its meeting held on 16.05.1988 granted extension in study leave on full pay up to 12.05.1988. In the meantime, the petitioner was offered appointment as Associate Professor on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and he joined as Associate Professor on 12.05.1988. He again requested for sanction of study leave without pay for 1988-89 on the ground that he want to complete his work. The leave for 3 months without pay was granted. The petitioner thereafter again requested to extend the extra ordinary leave for 3 months vide letter dated 26th July 1988. He was asked to furnish documentary evidence for study leave availed earlier. Further letter dated 31.10.1988 and a telegram was also sent for extension of leave. It was found by the respondent that leave granted under rule 32(iii)(a) of Ordinance 358 is converted into leave without pay to take up the employment else-where and ultimately, vide letter dated 2.01.1989 the petitioner was informed that leave period expired on 27.10.1988 and he has already been communicated and that further leave is not admissible under the rules and the petitioner was required to furnish proof of study leave availed. It was also intimated that he shall be treated wilfully absent from duty from 28.10.1988 in terms of rule 18 of Ordinance 358. Petitioner was also required to submit a certificate from the Chancellor, Bowling Green State University, Ohio or the Board of Regent of that University that he was not in employment. This letter shows that the respondent has granted leave to the petitioner on the basis that he is not going for employment but for further studies. Petitioner was also required to submit a certificate from the Chancellor, Bowling Green State University, Ohio or the Board of Regent of that University that he was not in employment. This letter shows that the respondent has granted leave to the petitioner on the basis that he is not going for employment but for further studies. Whether the contract of employment entered into by the petitioner with the Bowling Green State University was produced or not or whether it was seen or examined or not, need not be examined in these proceedings, suffice it to say that when this matter came up before this court in the earlier writ petition or even in the present writ petition it has not been stated that there was some document other than the contract which was produced and on the basis of which leave was granted and, therefore, even if the petitioner has applied wrongly for study leave then the respondents are clearly responsible for negligence on their part in not examining the contract which is said to have been submitted to them number of times. The effect of this would be that the respondents would not be entitled to claim the refund of salary which has been paid to the petitioner for the Session 1987-88 for which study leave was granted with full pay on the ground of their negligence. This would also not confer any benefit so far as the action of the respondent in reverting the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, for which I would like to refer the provisions of Ordinance 357-C, Note (5), which provides for reversion to the permanent service, grade or post of an employee appointed on probation to another service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation. This ordinance deals with various penalties and also provide that the competent authority may consider the circumstances of the case without holding an enquiry and pass such order as it deems fit. The validity of this Ordinance has not been challenged in this petition. (20) After the expiry of 3 months period on 27.10.1988 when the petitioner continued his stay abroad, the services could be terminated in accordance with the bod executed by the petitioner. The validity of this Ordinance has not been challenged in this petition. (20) After the expiry of 3 months period on 27.10.1988 when the petitioner continued his stay abroad, the services could be terminated in accordance with the bod executed by the petitioner. It was on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 7.2.1992 that he has written a letter to the Registrar, University of Rajasthan that "in accordance with the Syndicate Resolution No. 11 dated 18.1.1992, I hereby undertake to be abided by the decision of the Syndicate. I hope that just and fair decision will be taken in this regard. Further in continuation of my previous joining report dated 18.5.1985, I report myself on duty". This letter of the petitioner has left to the discretion of the Syndicate the entire matter and the petitioner cannot complain about the decision, which has been taken by the Syndicate. In resolution No. 11 dated 18.1.1992 the petitioner was advised to submit an under-taking in terms of earlier Resolution No. 15 dated 30.12.1988. The undertaking of the petitioner was placed before the Syndicate and the petitioner was also required to submit the said undertaking in the form of an affidavit on a non-judicial stamp duly attested by Notary Public, vide letter dated 21.3.1992. On 21.05.1992 the petitioner informed that the matter may be decided in the light of the judgment given in Writ Petition No.451/89. The Syndicate authorised the Vice Chancellor to constitute a Committee to review the whole position and recommend the action to be taken in terms of Resolution No. 11. An opportunity was given to the petitioner for personal hearing on 13.11.1992 and subsequently on 25.11.1992 to appear before the said Committee but he failed to appear and ather a letter dated 30.11.1992 was written to the Registrar to know as to for what purpose the Committee is calling him. This action of the petitioner was only to either delay the matter or not to face the Committee. The Committee accordingly came to the conclusion that it is a case of indiscipline and insubordination to the interest of the University as a whole and the petitioner was recommended to be reverted to the post of Assistant Professor and it was further recommended that his absence would be treated as leave without pay w.e.f. 28.10.1988 till he resumes his duty. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Syndicate. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Syndicate. The order dated 4/11.1.1993 which has consequently been passed has been challenged in the present writ petition on various grounds including that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is against the principles of natural justice and that he should be allowed to join the post of Associate Professor with all consequential benefits and re-fixation of pay etc. (21) Now, in the aforesaid circumstances, following points are required to be decided : I. Whether the respondents were justified in law in passing the order dated 11.1.1993? II. Whether the petitioner could be reverted to the post of Assistant Professor after he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor? III. If both the points are decided in favour of the petitioner, then to what relief he is entitled? (22) So far as the first question is concerned, I am of the view that the petitioner has entered into a contract and a bond has been executed, in which certain conditions were specified. The petitioner was bound by the conditions of the bond and could not have extended the period of study leave out side India, beyond the period for which he was permitted. Even if an application was submitted before the expiry of period for which leave was granted, unless leave is sanctioned he has no authority to deem it as the extension of leave at his level. Though the leave in the present case was initially wrongly granted, for which I have already observed above and found that the respondents are clearly responsible, hence I am not going on that point any further and I am of the view that the petitioner has no right to stay beyond 27.10.1988 when his leave expired and that he could not have prolonged his stay in any circumstances. This action of the petitioner, under the agreement entered into, could result even in termination of services. The respondents could have terminated the services of the petitioner. It was only on the basis of the letter of Shri Kali Charan Sarraf, one of the Members of Syndicate, to whom representation was made by the petitioner, that the Fact Finding Committee was constituted to consider the entire aspect of the matter and to recommend the action to be taken against the petitioner. It was only on the basis of the letter of Shri Kali Charan Sarraf, one of the Members of Syndicate, to whom representation was made by the petitioner, that the Fact Finding Committee was constituted to consider the entire aspect of the matter and to recommend the action to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim that the principles of natural justice have been violated, inasmuch as he has given himself in writing to abide by the decision of the Syndicate in accordance with Resolution No. 11. He was fully aware that in accordance with the bond executed by him, his services are liable to be terminated and there was no other matter to be considered. If the petitioner has failed to appear in spite of opportunity being given to appear before the committee, the grievance of violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be made. In these circumstances, I am clearly of the view that the order passed on 11.1.1993 is in accordance with law. (23) Ordinance 359 C (3) which refers to minor and major penalties, provides that the competent authority may consider the case and pass appropriate order as it deems fit. In the present case, the Committee was constituted to go into the detailed aspect of the various facts and then come to the conclusion and an opportunity was also given to the petitioner, which could not vitiate as the Ordinance provides that order could be passed even without holding an enquiry. The present matter is covered under the contract entered into and the services of the petitioner could have been terminated in accordance with the bond executed by him. In these circumstances, the order passed on 11.1.1993 is held to be valid. (24) Now the second point, which requires consideration is with regard to reversion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor. (25) From the facts, it would be found that the petitioner was on the permanent post of Assistant Professor and was on probation. If a person is on probation then either his services could be terminated or he could be reverted to the post on which he was in permanent service in accordance with Note (5) to Ordinance 357 (C). I am of the view that no illegality has been committed in reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor. If a person is on probation then either his services could be terminated or he could be reverted to the post on which he was in permanent service in accordance with Note (5) to Ordinance 357 (C). I am of the view that no illegality has been committed in reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor. However, this punishment would not be a bar for considering any future promotion, to which the petitioner may be entitled or may apply in accordance with the rules. (26) Since both the points have been decided against the petitioner, no relief can be granted to him in this writ petition. (27) In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the respondent University is not entitled for refund of salary paid to the petitioner for the academic Session 1987-88 as the respondent authorities themselves were negligent. The order of reversion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor is valid in law. The petitioner may join the said post within the time which may be fixed by the respondent. (28) No order as to costs.