- (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Head, Department of English, has impugned the order dated 23.7.2012, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is second senior most Lecturer working in Khalsa College, Amrtisar. He is the only Lecturer in the Department of English in the College holding Ph.D. Degree. Being senior most Lecturer in the Department of English, he was appointed as Head of the Department in July, 2007. On 13.9.2008, the petitioner applied for long leave without pay for a period of one year from 15.9.2008 to 2.10.2009, which was duly sanctioned. After availing leave, when the petitioner submitted his joining report on 3.10.2009 as Head of the Department of English, the petitioner was only permitted to join as Lecturer. He was informed that Mrs. Navneen Bawa is now Head of the Department. As the petitioner had been reduced in rank while removing from the post of Head of the Department, he raised the grievance before the Educational Tribunal, where the relief was declined to the petitioner vide order dated 24.2.2010. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing CWP No.7043 of 2010, which was allowed on 6.1.2012, holding that taking away of the charge of Head of the Department from the petitioner despite his being senior most Lecturer in the Department amounted to reduction in rank. The order passed by the Educational Tribunal was set aside and the College was directed to allow the petitioner to hold the post of Head, Department of English forthwith. Letters Patent Appeal No. 215 of 2012 filed by the College was dismissed by this court on 17.2.2012. Even though the order was passed by this court on 6.1.2012 in the presence of counsel for the College, but still the same was not complied with. The petitioner had to approach this court again by filing contempt petition bearing COCP No. 419 of 2012. Even during the pendency of the contempt petition, the College had been able to delay grant of relief to the petitioner on one pretext or the other. Ultimately on 28.5.2012, this court observed that in case the order is not complied with before the next date of hearing, the respondents therein will be burdened with costs. The matter was adjourned to 11.7.2012. As even on the next date, no material was produced showing compliance of the order, the matter was adjourned to 16.7.2012. It was only on that date that an order passed by the Principal of the College on 10.7.2012 was produced in court. The same was not earlier supplied to the petitioner. As the copy was furnished to the petitioner in court on 16.7.2012, he could assume charge only on 17.7.2012. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.7.2012, the contempt petition was disposed of while recording unconditional apology by the Principal of the College for the lapse with a warning to him to be careful in future.
(3.) From the aforesaid facts, it was clearly established that effort of the respondents was not to permit the petitioner to assume the charge as Head of the Department or let him work as such. They had been able to delay the process to its last, when cornered during contempt proceedings only then the judgment of this court was complied with. In fact, the moment the petitioner had joined as Head of the Department, he was conveyed that he will not be permitted to work as such. Being Head of the Department, the petitioner called the meeting of the Faculty Members of the Department vide office order dated 19.7.2012 to be held on 20.7.2012 to take stock of the work load and the allotment of work for the academic session. To the embarrassment of the petitioner, none of the members of the Faculty in the Department attended the meeting. The message, which was conveyed to the petitioner on his joining was loud and clear as none was recognising him as Head though on papers he had been given the charge. Even though every one in the College knew that the petitioner is to retire on superannuation on 31.8.2012 and will be there in the College only for a period of one month and 10 days, but still as the decision was not to co-operate and somehow to teach a lesson to the petitioner for going to the Court against the College and even filing a contempt petition where the Principal had been summoned in person, a complaint was got from Prof. Deepak Devgan, Department of Commerce, regarding some alleged incident which took place on 20.7.2012 and vide impugned order dated 23.7.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension. It was merely just within a week of petitioner's taking over the charge as Head, Department of English.;