Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the management of an educational institution. It is directed against the order of the Chancellor, dated March 13, 1979, whereby he has set aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor granting approval to the management's resolution and the termination of the services of respondent no. 2 Shyam Dutta Paliwal.
(2.) Sri Paliwal was a lecturer in English in the institution. He absented from duty with effect from August 15, 1975. On September 28, 1975 the management passed a resolution that since Sri Paliwal has not reported on duty since August 19, 1975, it is presumed that he has abandoned his post. As such, his services are terminated from that date. In the course the Vice-Chancellor accorded his approval to the said resolution. The Chancellor has held that the services were terminated on the ground that he was guilty of wilful neglect of duty within meaning of clause (a) of Statute 29 (a), but no proper disciplinary proceedings were drawn up, no charge-sheet was framed or served. Sri Paliwal had earlier applied for six month's leave without pay. In these circumstances, the conclusion that he had abandoned the post and was so guilty of wilful neglect of duty, was not correct. On this finding, the Vice-Chancellor's order granting approval was set aside. The Chancellor further observed that this was an exceptional case in which he thought it fit to interfere under clause (a) of the second proviso to section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of single termination. No punishment was intended Hence it was not necessary to go through the formalities of a formal disciplinary enquiry. I am enable to agree. Statute 29 (4) authorises the management to terminate the services on certain specified grounds. The first is wilful neglect of duty. The second is misconduct including disobedience of the order of the Vice-Chancellor. It is clear that termination on such grounds is by way of punishment. Actually the management did terminate the services on the ground of wilful neglect of duly because otherwise the con elusion that the teacher had abandoned his post would not fall within the purview of any of the clauses of Statute 29 (4). Admittedly no disciplinary enquiry was held, no charges were framed or served, no opportunity to defend was afforded to Sri Paliwal. In these circumstances, the Chancellor was justified in coming to the conclusion that the termination of service was illegal.;