M.L.Bhat - (1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of approval recorded by the respondent no. 1 on the recommendation of the committee of Management, Digamber Jain, Polytechnic, Baraut, District Meerut (hereinafter called as 'the institution') and the consequential order of dismissal dated 26-12-1991 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Committee of Management of the institution. This case has a chequered history and for property appreciation of facts it is necessary to go into the background of the case.
(2.) THE petitioner is said to have been the Principal of the institution. He is said to have applied for leave without pay by his letter dated 15-12-1987 for going aboard (Jordan) in connection with some project work, which was assigned to him by some; contractors, who were Indian builders executing the work in that country. He was granted one years' leave only which had to expire on 30-12-1988. He applied for extension of leave, which was rejected However, he did not join the institution after the expiry of his leave but he joined his duties on 28-2-1989 i. e. about two months after the expiry of leave. Resuming his work as Principal and after working for some time in the institution the petitioner is said to have applied for leave again by his application dated 15-2- 1990. He wanted to go aboard in connection with the fulfilment of his previous commitment. THE Chairman directed on 16-2-1930 to place the said application in the next meeting of the committee of management. THE petitioner was ex officio Secretary of the committee of management also THE meeting of the committee of management did not take place immediately, so the petitioner is said to have left the institution on 28-2-1990 and went to Jordan after handing over the charge to one of the junior most teachers of the institution. THE petitioner is said to have met the Chairman of the committee of management also and reguested him to allow him to go abroad but he refused to sanction the leave without approval of the committee of management. THE petitioner is said to have addressed a letter to the Chairman of the committee of management informing him about his departure for Jordan. THEreupon the petitioner was suspended on 30-3-1990 and he was served with a notice to show cause why necessary disciplinary action be not taken against him on the charges mentioned in the notice. THE show cause notice was replied by the petitioner through his counsel. THEreupon the committee of management In its meeting dated 22-6-1990 appears to have appointed one Ram Krishna Agarwal, Proprietor, Harsh Engineering works, Surajkund, Meerut as enquiry officer and the said enquiry officer was asked to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner in the suspension order dated 30-3-1990. THE petitioner as also his counsel Sri S. N. Upadhyaya were served. THE enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charges as proved against the petitioner on 17-8-1990 Copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner also allowing him time upto 30-9-1990 for filing his reply. THE matter was taken up on 27-10-1990 by the committee of management again and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and he was called upon by a notice dated 2-12-1991 to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of notice why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. THE notice was served on the petitioner through his counsel Sri Upadhyaya. Sri Upadhyaya wrote a letter on behalf of the son of the petitioner dated 9-3-1991 asking further one month's time to enable him to submit his reply to the show cause notice. THE Committee of Management thereupon is said to have informed the petitioner on 23-4-1991 that in view of the Director's letter dated 9-4-1991 approving the decision of the committee of management the petitioner's services are terminated with effect from 30-3-1990. Against this order the petitioner appears to have filed writ petition No. 17904 of 1991. THE said writ petition was finally decided by this Court on 24-9-1991. THE petitioner appears to have raised four arguments in that writ petition. It was contended by him that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the show cause notice as contemplated by section 22-G (2) of the U. P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhinlyam, 1962 ; and secondly, it was contended by him that no regulations as contemplated by section 23 (2) (ii) of the Adhiniyam were framed with regard to the conditions of service of Principals and teachers of affiliated institutions, which has resulted in conferral of arbitrary, unrestricted and unguided power upon the committee of management and the Director of Technical Education. Thirdly, it was contended that the petitioner's services were terminated on malafide ground at the behest of Sri Kailash Chand Jain Acting Chairman of the institution and fourthly, it was submitted that the approval was accorded by the Director of Technical Education to the resolution dismissing the petitioner from service without application of mind and in an arbitrary manner. THE Director had not examined whether the proposed punishment was communsurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The High Court by its judgment dated 24-9-1991 held that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner as contemplated by section 22-G (2). It also held that in the absence of any regulation, which could be framed under section 23 (2) (ri) of the Adhiniyam the disciplinary power could be exercised by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and non-framing of the regulation would not affect their right to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the employee of the institution. It was further held that section 23 of the Act only regulates the procedure for carrying out the purpose of the Act and it does not affect the jurisdiction of the authorities to act under the said Adhiniyam. The High Court: also repelled the contention of the petitioner with regard to his termination order being malafide having been passed at the instance of Sri Kailash Chandra Jain. The High Court, however, was of the opinion that the approval granted by the respondent No. 1 to the dismissal of the petitioner was not valid as the same was without application of mind and the approval of dismissal could not be with retrospective effect. The dismissal against the petitioner would operate from the date of approval and not from any dale prior to that. The High Court after quashing the order dated 9-4-1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 directed the Director of Technical Education to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment within six weeks The order which was to be passed by the Director with legard to the imposition punishment on the petitioner was suggested to be of reformatory nature i. e. minor punishment so as to enable the delinquent to improve upon himself and devote his time and intellect in the service of she institution. The High Court made the following observations with regard to the imposition of punishment : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a punishment (other than one of dismissal from or termination of service) whether by way of reduction to the lowest grade tin the scale of pay admissible to the post of Principal and/or by way of stoppage of increments, as the Director may think fit and appropriate, if awarded, would not only save the petitioner's career from being ruined, but would also afford him an opportunity to use his time intellect and energy besides experience he has acquired abroad for promoting the interest of the institution of which he was appointed as Principal " The Committee of management seems to have filed Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court dated 24-9-1991 before the Supreme Court The Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition finally on 19-12 1991 directed that the Director of Technical Education, U. P. will be at liberty to take a decision on the question of penalty without being influenced by the observations of the High Court. Therefore, the observations of the High Court in its judgment with regard to the imposit on of minor punishment on the petitioner became redundant and the Director of Technical Education was given unfettered powers to take a decision on the question of imposition of penalty on the petitioner. So the Director of Technical Education had to consider the recommendation of the committee if management and proceed in the matter from the stage It may he mentioned that the resolution off the committee of management dated 27-10-1990 or the show cause notice dated 21-2-1991 were not challenged in the writ petition
(3.) IN the present writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of approval dated 25-12-1991 and the consequential order of dismissal dated 26-12-1991 because after the directions of the Supreme Court the respondent No. 1 has passed a fresh order granting approval to the proposal of dismissal. The petitioner challenges the said two orders on the ground that no show cause notice was issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner as required under section 22-G (2) of the Adhiniyam and on the ground that the order of dismissal is too harsh and is not commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner and on the ground that because the approval has been accorded without assigning any reason therefor. So the controversy in this writ petition is limited. The main controversy is with regard to the enquiry and validity of the enquiry report as also the validity of the resolution of the committee of management are settled in the previous writ petition, which was decided on 24-9-1991. The main points which this Court has to consider are whether the impugned order dated 25-12-1991 is passed after application of mind and whether the dismissal order dated 26-12-1991 can be grounded on that order and whether any show cause notice was required to be given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders and whether the punishment was harsh.;