Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 211 (UTT)

Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-07-19

R.C.KHULBE, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, primarily, to assail the termination of his services vide termination order dated 16.12.2020, passed by the Registrar of the SC Guria Law College, which is respondent No. 6 in the present petition. Respondent No. 7 is the Principal of the said College. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent No. 3, i.e. the Kumaon University with whom respondent No. 6 College is affiliated, to decide the Appeal dated 23.12.2020 filed by him against his termination vide order dated 16.12.2020. The petitioner also raises a grievance with regard to non-payment of his salary and other benefits. He seeks reinstatement to the post of Assistant Professor, Law, in the respondent No. 6 College with all consequential benefits. He further seeks compensation of Rs. Five Lacs from the respondent No. 6 College for the illegalities committed by them for, firstly, suspending his services and, thereafter, terminating the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor, Law, in the respondent No. 6-College with effect from 01.04.2016. His services could be continued on yearly basis, after obtaining approval of respondent No. 3-University. 3. The case of the petitioner is that during the lockdown imposed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, respondent No. 6-College directed the faculty members to come to the College physically, lest they will be sacked. The petitioner protested against such directions, which led to, firstly, his suspension vide order dated 06.08.2020 and, thereafter, to the termination of his services by the impugned order dated 16.12.2020. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 6 has acted wholly illegally. No charge-sheet was ever issued to the petitioner and no inquiry was conducted. The termination order is stigmatic by way of penalty, and the same is completely in violation of the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and whimsical and in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. Ms. No charge-sheet was ever issued to the petitioner and no inquiry was conducted. The termination order is stigmatic by way of penalty, and the same is completely in violation of the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and whimsical and in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, has drawn our attention to Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, to submit that under sub-section (2) thereof, every decision of the Management of an associated college, which is the respondent-College in the present case, to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall, before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it is approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the respondent No. 6 is not a minority College and, therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner by respondent No. 6 is in breach of Section 35(2) of the Act, and by force of law, it has not taken effect. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that the petitioner had made false allegations against the Management of the College. He claimed to have got his license to practice suspended from the Bar Council, but the Bar Council has informed the respondent No. 6 that the license of the petitioner has not been suspended. 8. A perusal of the order of suspension dated 06.08.2020 shows that the same makes absolutely general and vague allegations against the petitioner of his spreading false propaganda against the College, and the like. No specifics and particulars of the allegations are to be found in the communication dated 06.08.2020, which are alleged against the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner represented against his suspension to the respondent-University on 20.08.2020. The respondent No. 6-College responded to the same on 24.08.2020 by directly addressing a communication to the petitioner. Even this communication is completely vague, and does not bring out the specific allegations against the petitioner. No charge-sheet appears to have been issued to the petitioner making specific allegations against him, or providing any supporting material, which the respondent No. 6-College desired to rely upon in any inquiry proceeding. Even this communication is completely vague, and does not bring out the specific allegations against the petitioner. No charge-sheet appears to have been issued to the petitioner making specific allegations against him, or providing any supporting material, which the respondent No. 6-College desired to rely upon in any inquiry proceeding. No inquiry appears to have been conducted against the petitioner with his participation and by granting him an opportunity to defend himself. On 16.12.2020, the termination letter was issued to the petitioner, which reads as follows: ^^egksn;] gekjs i=kad la[;k 0-0-@2020@1185 ds ek/;e ls okLrfod fLFkfr dks Li"V djus ds fy, vkidks volj Ánku fd;s x;s Fks ysfdu vkids }kjk vHkh rd dksbZ Hkh Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k gS tks fd ,d ?kksj ykijokgh gSA ftlls Árhr gksrk gS fd vc vkidh laLFkku esa dk;Z djus dh dksbZ :fp ugha gSA vkids }kjk iwoZ esa Hkh laLFkku fojks/kh xfrfof/k;ksa ,oa laLFkku dh Nfo /kwfey djus gsrq d`R;ksa esa lfEefyr gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vr% ÁcU/k lfefr ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vkidh vflLVsUV ÁksQslj ds in ls lsok;sa fuyafcr frfFk ls gh vkidh lsok,a lekIr dh tkrh gSaA** 9. A perusal of the termination letter also shows that the same is completely vague and devoid of any particulars. Clearly the said suspension and termination of the petitioner are completely laconic and cannot be sustained. 10. We also find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3-University that the petitioner’s services could not have been terminated, and he could not be dismissed without prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor and since the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor was not obtained, the petitioner is deemed to have continued in service. 11. We, accordingly, quash the order of termination of the petitioner contained in the communication dated 16.12.2020. 12. The last appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis for the academic session 2018-19. Thereafter, his services were continued each year, and it was current in the academic session 2020-2021 as well, as his termination was effected-though illegally, on 16.12.2020. The tenure of his contractual appointment would have ended on 30th June, 2021, if his services had not been terminated by the impugned termination order dated 16.12.2020, as the academic session, admittedly, ends on 30th of June of the following year. The tenure of his contractual appointment would have ended on 30th June, 2021, if his services had not been terminated by the impugned termination order dated 16.12.2020, as the academic session, admittedly, ends on 30th of June of the following year. Since the petitioner’s services were illegally terminated, he is entitled to receive his salaries and perks, which he would have, normally, entitled to receive, if he continued in service till 30th June, 2021. 13. We, therefore, direct the respondent No. 6-College to pay to the petitioner the salaries and all the allowances admissible to him for the contractual period ending on 30th June, 2021 without any deductions whatsoever within next one month. 14. Since the petitioner was subjected to illegal termination, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition with costs. Hence, the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to be paid by respondent No. 6-College to the petitioner within two weeks.