Slnghal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 4/11-1-1993, by which he has been reverted on the post of Assistant Professor from the post of Assistant.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor vide order dated 31. 10. 1980 on temporary basis and he joined the said post of 1. 11. 1980. THE petitioner was confirmed by order dated 28. 1. 1986 w. e. f. 9. 11. 1985. The petitioner entered into a contract for faculty employment from Bowling Green State University, Ohio for the academic year 19. 8. 1987 to 18. 5. 1988 for the rank of Post Doctoral Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics & Statistics. An application for sanction of study leave was submitted by the petitioner. The study leave was granted for a period of six months on full pay from 1. 8. 1987 under rule 37 (viii) (a) (i) of the Ordinance 358. An application dated 4. 02. 1988 was sent by he petitioner informing that he is doing his Post Doctoral research work with Dr. A. K. Gupta, Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, U. S. A. Since the research was to continue for one more year, extension for study leave for another year i. e. for the Session 1988-89 was requested. In the mean-time, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Associate Professor of Statistics on 23. 04. 1988 on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Rajasthan University teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974, which was approved by the Syndicate. The selection and appointment was subject to various conditions mentioned in the said letter dated 23. 04. 1988. In the said order, besides other conditions, it was provided that the appointment is on probation for one year. During the period, it was to be terminated on one months' notice on either side. The petitioner submitted the joining report on 12. 05. 1988. The study leave in full pay was further extended from 1. 02. 1988 to 12. 05. 1988 vide order dated 25. 05. 1988. It is submitted that another contract for faculty employment dated 27. 04. 1988 was entered into for the period 17. 8. 88 to 17. 5. 89. The total salary to be paid for the above period was 18,000 $. An application dated 8. 06. 1988 was submitted mentioning that the petitioner was sanctioned study leave for the Session 1987-88 to do Post Doctoral work at Bowling Green State University and he intended to continue his post doctoral work for one more year. Since the work was not complete, request was made to sanction leave admissible under the Rules for one more year for the Session of 1988-89. Leave for 3 months was granted under Rule 32 (iii) (a) of Ordinance 358 without pay and it was informed that the leave applied for by him for one year is not admissible under the Rules. The petitioner was directed to furnish documentary evidence about his study leave availed earlier. The petitioner has alleged that a new contract dated 27. 04. 1988 was in the knowledge of the respondent arid no fact was concealed. A letter of request dated 12. 8. 88 was also sent from Bowling Green State University for sanction of leave for the Session 1988. 89. A telegram dated 17. 10. 1988 accompanied by a letter was also sent by the petitioner for extension of leave. In the letter sent by the petitioner dated 17. 10. 1988, it was acknowledged that he was asked to furnish documentary evidence in respect of study leave availed earlier. The petitioner continued his work without there being any sanction and sent a telegram on 21. 12. 1988. A latter was written by the Registrar, University of Rajasthan to the petitioner on 30. 12. 1988 /2. 1. 1989 in response to the telegram dated 21. 12. 1988 that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 30. 12. 1988 has not sanctioned any kind of leave and the leave already sanctioned has lapsed on 27. 04. 1988. The petitioner was treated absent from duty from 28. 10. 1988 in terms of Rule 18 of Ordinance 358. The petitioner was required to submit a certificate from the Chancellor, Bowling Green State University Ohio or the Board of Regent of that University to the effect that the was not in employment of that University during the period of study leave i. e. 1. 8. 87 to 11. 5. 88, failing which disciplinary action was proposed to be taken. The reply was submitted on 9. 01. 1989 in which the petitioner has offerred to refund the amount of salary which was received by him during the period of study leave and sought six week time to submit reply. It was mentioned that there was a direction from the respondent to the Head of the Department of Statistics and the Principal of Maharaja College not to permit the petitioner to join the duty without permission of the Vice Chancellor and such endorsement was not existing in the copy of the letter given to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 12. 01. 1989, the petitioner was informed that he must clearly state as to whether he wishes to join the duty and if so, then an under-taking in writing should be given that 'you would subject yourself to the decision of the Syndicate with regard to your leave matters as well as your absence from duty after 27. 10. 1988'. Without complying with the letter, the petitioner approached this Court and a writ petition, bearing No. 451/89 was filed. In the said writ petition, the orders dated 2. 1. 1989 and 12. 1. 1989 were challenged and it was held by this Court that the authorities have a right to proceed with the matter in accordance with the rules and this court has no jurisdiction to say that do not proceed with the enquiry, if any pending against the petitioner. In this case no enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and only on the apprehension that because of not joining the duty, disciplinary action may be taken against him, the petitioner has rushed to the court and got stay order. The writ petition was held to be pre-mature. A review petition was also submitted, which was decided on 10. 9. 1991.
(3.) THE petitioner thereafter again returned back to Ohio and completed his assignment. On return he has submitted the joining report on 18. 05. 1989 and he was not allowed to join. A representation was submitted on 5. 09. 1991 to the Vice Chancellor and ultimately, a letter dated 17. 2. 1993 (Exhibit-18) was written to the Registrar that in accordance with the Syndicate Resolution No. 11 dated 18. 1. 1992 the petitioner under-takes to abide by the decision of the Syndicate. THE petitioner was informed vide letter dated 6/21. 3. 1992 that the letter received on 8. 02. 1992 is not in consonance with the Resolution passed by the Syndicate on 18. 1. 1992 and, therefore, he was requested to send an affidavit in terms of resolution No. 15 dated 30. 12. 1988. THE petitioner in his letter dated 21. 05. 1992 has reproduced the submissions of Mr. Sharma as mentioned in the judgment and on the basis of that he submitted that the joining report dated 18. 05. 1989 has already been submitted and, therefore, he should be paid arrears of salary. Another letter dated 22. 4. 1992 was also submitted by the petitioner. THE petitioner was informed by letter dated 23/25. 11. 1992 that he has not appeared before the Committee on 20. 11. 1992 at 3. 00 PM in the V. C. Secretariat, University Campus, Jaipur and the next meeting to review the case and recommend the action for consideration of the Syndicate will be held on 1. 12. 1992. He was informed that the Committee has desired that an opportunity for personal hearing be given to him and in case he does not appear, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter. Instead of appearing on 1. 12. 1992, a letter was written on 30. 11. 1992 by the petitioner to the Registrar that for what reason the Committee has been formed and who are the members of the Committee and he has not received copy of the resolution No. 16. Ultimately, the Syndicate reviewed the whole position and recommended that the petitioner who was appointed as Associate Professor in Statistics on probation be reverted to" the post of Assistant Professor w. e. f. 28. 10. 1988, the date from which he has been treated as wilfully absent from duty as it was the Syndicate's resolution No. 15 dated 30. 12. 1988. It was further resolved that the period of absence from duty has been treated as on leave without pay w. e. f. 28. 10. 1988 till he resumes his duty as Assistant Professor in Statistics. It is this order, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. It has been submitted that he was neither given the charge sheet nor any reply was asked from the petitioner and he was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and reversion with retrospective effect is an arbitrary action. The petitioner was not allowed to join immediately on return from abroad. The allegations of mala fides have also been raised but neither the name of any person or the manner or circumstances under which the said order was passed mala fidely, have been explained nor proved. It has also been submitted that the other teachers here-not been given such harash treatment and there is discrimination in the matter of punishment. The case of the respondent in not allowing him to join on the pretext of not submitting the affidavit was entirely illegal. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1), wherein it has been held that non furnishing of copy of enquiry report to the delinquent would be violative of the principles of natural justice, rendering the final order invalid. I may mention that this judgment has its application prospectively and as would be evident from the subsequent paras hereinafter that there was not enquiry report in the disciplinary enquiry which was initiated. The judgment cited above has no application. Against the proposed action, an opportunity was given to the petitioner but he has not availed it to appear before the Committee. ;