SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MANAGER, DAIVI SAMPAD ADHYATM SANSKRIT MAHAVID
LAWS(ALL)-1993-8-85
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 13,1993

SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
Manager, Daivi Sampad Adhyatm Sanskrit Mahavid Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) Sri Daivi Sampad Adhyatm Sanskrit Maha-vidyalaya, Parmarth Niketan, Post-Swargashram (Rishikesh) Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter referred to as the College) is an affiliated and recognized college by Sam-purnanand Sanskrit Vishvvavidyalaya, Varanasi. On 29-8-1989 the petitioner was appointed as a clerk, by the Manager of the College. The appointment letter stated that in pursuance of the letter dated 27-3-1989 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education Garhwal Region, Pauri under Government order dated 12-4-1982, the petitioner is appointed on the post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs 354-550 on temporary basis. The salary will be payable on receiving payment from the Department By letter dated 28-9-1989 the Assistant Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshala, Garhwal Region, Pauri approved the appointment of the petitioner. By letter dated 7-11-1990 the Manager of the College forwarded the resolution of the Committee of Management confirming the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk The letter was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Pauri Garhwal. In the resolution passed by the Committee of Management, it was stated that the petitioner was appointed on first of September, 1989 on probation for a period of one year and the appointment was approved by Assistant Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshala, Pauri The work and conduct of the petitioner had been satisfactory, as such, the petitioner is confirmed from 1-9-1990.
(2.) However, by letter dated 11-11-1992, the petitioner was informed that the Committee of Management of the College in its meeting dated 10-11-1992 has suspended the petitioner till further orders. The District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 26-11-1992 disapproved the suspension of the petitioner However, vide letter dated 5-1-1993 the petitioner was informed that his services stand terminated from the date the suspension order was passed against him. In this letter it has been stated that the petitioner was suspended on 10-11-1992 and an Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and by registered letter dated 17-11-1992. the petitioner was asked to explain the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply dated 30-11-1992 has refuted the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was also informed that if he wants to appear personally before the Committee, he can appear on 23-12-1992 but the petitioner did not appear before the Committee, nor sent any statement before the Committee. Accordingly, the Enquiry Committee on the basis of the reply of the petitioner and on the basis of the record of the College and the statement of the Principal, teachers and the, employees of the College found the charges against the petitioner to have been proved and the Committee of Management received the report of the Enquiry Committee on 25-12-1992. The Committee of Management in its meeting dated 26-12-1992 considered the matter and decided that it is not in the interest of the College to keep the petitioner in service. The petitioner has been found guilty of indiscipline, distrust, disobedience of the orders, dereliction of duty and of conspirator nature, accordingly, the Committee of Management has decided to terminate the services of the petitioner from the date of the suspension order. It was further slated in the letter that since the petitioner had been absconding himself from the College since 23-9-1992, there is no question of paying him three month's salary. The District Inspector of Schools, again disapproved the termination order of the petitioner.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of termination of service, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the permission of the Court, a supplementary affidavit was also filed by the petitioner. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has raised a ground that the petitioner's services have been terminated in violation of Statute 4 (6) of the U.P. State Universities (Affiliated and Associated Colleges Non-teaching Staff qualifications and Service Conditions) First Statutes, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the First Statutes of 1977) which reads as under:- "Every decision of the Management of the College to dismiss or remove any employee or to reduce in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him be reported to the Director of Education (Higher Education) and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Director.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.