Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Managing Committee of the Respondent Mehar Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar (Respondent No. 2) (for brevity "Respondent -College") used to receive 95 per cent grant -in -aid from the Punjab Government. The State Government is stated to have effective control over its affairs and it is also controlled by All India Council for Technical Education (for short "AICTE"). Thus, it is an instrumentality of the State and is covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as held by this Court in case C.L. Kochhar v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1992 (2) S.L.R. 496 .
(2.) THE Petitioner claimed that he was appointed as Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy by the Respondent -College, by virtue of appointment letter dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure P1), but its principal unilaterally changed his terms and conditions of service, by way of letter dated 23.5.1990 (Annexure P2). In pursuance of letter dated 21.1.1991 (Annexure P3), increment of Rs.100/ -per month was granted to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.3000 -4500 raising his pay from Rs.3000 to Rs.3100/ -per month. The principal of the Respondent -College was stated to have illegally terminated the services of the Petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice or holding any inquiry, by means of impugned order dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure P4). The Petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned termination order (Annexure P4), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE case set up by the Petitioner, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Managing Committee of Respondent -College was the appointing and punishing authority of the Petitioner, but his services were terminated by its Principal (Respondent No. 4), vide impugned order (Annexure P4) in an arbitrary manner, without issuing any show cause notice and affording opportunity of being heard to him. Petitioner claimed that although the impugned termination order caused aspersion on his conduct and is a stigmatic order, but still his services were terminated without following the due procedure of inquiry and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It was explained that his work and conduct had throughout been satisfactory and since no deficiency or discrepancy in his work and conduct was ever conveyed to him, so, the conclusion drawn by the Respondent -College in this regard was stated to be arbitrary and without any basis.;