- (1.) Petitioner-Daya Nand College for Women, through its President, K.L. Mehta, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order, Annexure P-2 dated January 28, 1987, as also to declare sections 7(2), (3) (4), 10 and 11 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 as ultra vires and violative of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and inapplicable to it which is being run and maintained by Arya Samaj, a religious minority.
(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner College is affiliated one run by registered Society know as Maharishi Daya Nand Education Society, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad. It is stated that the aim of the Society is to propagate the philosophy and teaching of Maharishi Dayanand, founder of Arya Samaj and to set up educational institutions, schools and colleges on modern lines in consonance with the norms and ideals laid down by Swami Ji. All those persons, who are above the age of 21 years and have faith in the teaching of Maharishi Daya Nand i.e. Arya Samaj can become members of the Society. Arya Samaj, it is pleaded, is a minority community in the State of Haryana. It has its own script known as Devnagri and is a reformist movement believing in one God and Vedas as the books of true knowledge. It is a distinct organisation, the membership of which is open to those who subscribed to its aims and objects. It has been held to be minority community, so pleads the petitioner.
(3.) The staff employed by the petitioner-College includes Principal and Teachers, who are governed by the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to as 1979 Act). The rules framed under 1979 Act are called the Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rules, 1979. Respondent-Kiran Aggarwal was serving as Principal of Petitioner-College. However, she was placed under suspension by its Management for various acts of omission and commission. She was duly served with a charge-sheet and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges against her. It is pleaded that the Enquiry Officer, after having as many as 58 hearings, after hearing respondent No. 2 and petitioner- management, found her guilty of various charges vide report dated November 27, 1985. It is pleaded, respondent No. 2 was represented by a lawyer throughout the enquiry and she had fully participated in the enquiry. The first charge proved against her was that there was dereliction besides lack of efficiency in discharge of her duties by disregarding Haryana Government directive issued vide letter dated July 21, 1984 ordering that no post should be created in the College without prior approval of the Director, Higher Education. She was also held guilty of concealing the said instructions from the Management and getting the posts filled by such concealment ultimately resulting into loss of Rs. 1.83 lacs to the college on account of Government having disallowed the grant with respect to the said posts. She was also held guilty of wilful defiance of the President of the Institution as also of the Governing body thereof inasmuch as despite the President of the Institution having directed her to abolish the posts got filled illegally and unauthorisedly with a view to off-set future loss to the maintenance of grant of the college, she failed to implement the directive of the President and the governing body and instead instigated the affected employees to file court cases against petitioner- management. She was also found guilty of indiscipline consisting of use of derogatory language and of unjustified criticism of the actions of President of the Managing Committee in complete defiance of the Service Rules. Besides that, she was also found guilty of misleading the University and Haryana Govt. about the working and activities of the College, and breach of trust for having unauthorisedly secured loan of Rs. 10,000/- from Students Fund for her personal use in direct contravention of the Rules governing the use of such fund. Over and above this, she was also found guilty of misusing her position as principle by taking her own daughter not as a student of the College but as member of College contingent on trips in violation and contravention of the rules governing such trips. Since the charges against the contesting respondent were fully proved. Management decided to remove her from service subject to the approval of the Director of Higher Education, Haryana. Accordingly, after accepting the enquiry report, the case was submitted to the Director, High Education, Haryana for grant of approval which was granted vide order dated June 4, 1986. Being aggrieved, contesting respondent preferred an appeal under Section 11 of 1979 Act before the Secretary, Department of Education, Haryana, who vide orders dated January 28, 1987, held that although charge Nos. 5, 8 and 11 were proved, still punishment of removal from service was not called for and lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect could meet the ends of justice. It was also directed that respondent be taken back in service forthwith and her pay and allowances be paid to her from the date of removal from the service on the said post. It is this order of the Secretary, Department of Education, Haryana, dated January 28, 1987, which is under challenge in the present petition.;