Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1777 (JHR)

Binod Kumar Singh v. Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University

2017-10-11

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 21.07.2007 issued by the Secretary of the Governing Body of College, whereby services of the petitioners have been terminated and further for quashing letter dated 23.02.2006 whereby appointment of the petitioners have been declared illegal and also for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in services on their respective posts with all consequential benefits. 2. The factual matrix, as depicted in the writ application, in a nutshell is that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Governing Body of Dr. Jagannath Mishra College, Jasidih, Deoghar (herein after referred to as "College") in local news paper, for the post of lecturers for different subjects, the petitioners after going through the selection process were appointed vide different reference nos. dated 01.09.2003 and accordingly they gave their joining. But, vide memo dated 21.05.2005 one enquiry committee was constituted to detect the irregularities in appointment and basing of its report, the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 23.02.2006 communicated to Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Secretary of the ad-hoc Committee of College that appointments of teaching and non-teaching staffs has been declared illegal and directed for taking necessary action. Basing on such communication and direction, the Secretary of the Governing Body of the college issued letter dated 21.07.2007 whereby services of the petitioners have been terminated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier appointment made in 2000, advertisement was published in local newspaper "Vihar Bani" and persons appointed in the year 2000 have been continuing till date but in the case of the present petitioners one of the grounds for termination has been assigned that advertisement has not been published in national newspaper rather in local newspaper "Vihar Bani", which shows hostile discrimination on the part of respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that their appointments have been made against duly sanctioned and vacant post as evident from letter dated 21.12.1987 issued by the Education Department, Govt. of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that from bare perusal of letter dated 23.02.2006 it is evident that no cogent reason has been assigned to declare the appointment illegal. of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that from bare perusal of letter dated 23.02.2006 it is evident that no cogent reason has been assigned to declare the appointment illegal. It has further been submitted that before issuance of impugned order of termination neither any show cause notice was served upon the petitioners nor any explanation was ever served upon the petitioners and only basing on letter dated 23.06.2006, without following the principles of natural justice, petitioners have been terminated from services. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even if it is taken to be true that enquiry was done the same was conducted behind the back of the petitioners and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision rendered in the case of Arun Kumar Singh & Ors v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., as reported in 2010 (1) JLJR 244 . 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that only in order to favour these petitioners the Governing Body of the college published advertisement in local newspaper, which is violative of statute dated 9.9.1988 of the Manuals of University Laws. It has further been submitted that one man Interview Board was constituted, who conducted interview on 01.09.2003 and on the same date the then ad-hoc committee of the college took decision by calling a meeting for approval and on the same day i.e. on 01.09.2003 appointment letters were issued in a very haste manner. It has been submitted even otherwise also, the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications, but ignoring all these facts, in contravention to the Universities Act and settled principles of law, appointments were made. Hence, basing on these illegalities, an enquiry committee was constituted, who conducted enquiry and submitted its report and basing on such report their services were terminated. Referring to catena of case laws, as in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors as reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379 , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if upon admitted or undisputed facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice would not apply. 5. Referring to catena of case laws, as in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors as reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379 , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if upon admitted or undisputed facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice would not apply. 5. There is no shadow of doubt that the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with without following the bare minimum necessity of principles of natural justice or the principles of audi alteram partem. In such view of the matter the action of the respondents-University in dispensing the services of the petitioners without complying the principles of natural justice is legally unsustainable, sans all canons of natural justice. Furthermore, from the documents available on records it appears that no terms and conditions in the appointment order or relevant statute under the University gives unbridled, uncandised and absolute power to the University to dispense with services of the employee without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. Though the impugned order of termination on the face of it appears to be termination simplicitor or innocuous but the said termination order has been passed on the basis of inquiry admittedly behind their back. Therefore, the impugned order of discharge is a punitive and stigmatic one so regular departmental inquiry or full dressed inquiry ought to have been initiated against the petitioners by the University as contemplated under the Statute, same having not been done, the impugned order is rendered vulnerable to judicial scrutiny. Moreover, the impugned letter of termination is said to have been passed on the basis of enquiry report, but the said report has never been made available to the petitioners prior to termination the services so that they may have put forth their defence. It is well settled principle that either in case of a termination simplicitor or termination punitive as per the Statute without giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause action against proposed punishment to be taken, the services of the employees cannot be terminated. 6. Hence, at this stage without making any comment on merit of the matter as would adversely affect the case of the parties, it would be apposite to remit the matter back for de novo enquiry and basing on such finding, a fresh decision is required to be taken in accordance with law. 7. 6. Hence, at this stage without making any comment on merit of the matter as would adversely affect the case of the parties, it would be apposite to remit the matter back for de novo enquiry and basing on such finding, a fresh decision is required to be taken in accordance with law. 7. On cumulative effect of the facts and judicial pronouncements and as logical sequitur to the reasons made in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of termination 21.07.2007 issued by the Secretary of the Governing Body of College and letter dated 23.02.2006 whereby appointment of the petitioners have been declared illegal are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents-authority to initiate de novo proceeding against the petitioners after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners, in accordance with Statute and law of the University Act and other relevant provisions of the University Act and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, writ application stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.