R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) Appellant was Dean of Students Welfare in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the University). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet dated October 1, 1986, containing seven charges, was served on him. Enquiry Officer held charges No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 as proved. Charge No. 5 was held to be partly proved and regarding charge No. 7 benefit of doubt was given to the appellant. On the basis of the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service by order dated December 28, 1988. Being aggrieved the appellant challenged the order of dismissal by means of writ petition No. 1061 of 1989, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and the order of Board of Management of the University, dismissing him from service, was quashed and the matter was sent back to the Board of Management, to consider it afresh after giving copy of the Enquiry report and opportunity of being heard to him.
(2.) Board of Management passed a fresh order dated May 14, 1991 terminating the service of the appellant. However, he was allowed post retirement benefits in accordance with the statutes of the university. The appellant challenged the above order of termination of his service, by means of a writ petition, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on July 8, 1992, Hence this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has made three submissions, in support of the appeal, viz. (i) Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1961 of 1989, filed by the appellant against the first order of dismissal from service operates as res judicata and it was not open to the Board of Management to act contrary to it; (ii) There is no finding of bad motive, in the absence of which the appellant cannot be said to be guilty of misconduct within the meaning of the statutes, and (iii) Learned Single Judge was bound by the decision of Division bench , given in earlier writ petition of the appellant and it was not open to take a view contrary to what has been laid down by Division Bench in earlier case. Learned counsel for the University had disputed the above submissions.;