ORDER :

1. The matters were listed in motion hearing but in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2022 in case of Subir Sen vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed on 20.07.2022, this Court vide its order dated 22-08-2022 has directed both the cases to be listed for final disposal in motion hearing and accordingly the matters are being heard finally.

2. Since the identical facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions i.e. W.P. (S) No. 2951 of 2022 and W.P. (S) No. 2988 of 2022, they are being heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners who were working as Assistant Professor with the respondents No. 2 and 3 have challenged the termination order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed in view of resolution dated 16-02-2022 (Annexure P/9) and also prayed for quashing of the entire departmental inquiry. The petitioners have also prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

4. Brief facts as reflected from the records of both the cases are that the respondents No. 2 and 3 is the College run by the society registered under the Societies Act. The college run by the society is an unaided education institution as it is not getting any grant from the State Government or from any commission. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professor on 03-10-1987 and were confirmed as per Statute 28 of the College Code framed under C.G. Vishvidyalaya Adhiniyum 1973 on 17-06-2003. On 10-01-2022 the Respondent-3 issued notice to the Petitioners regarding their decision to initiate departmental inquiry against them. Along with information dated 10-01-2022 charge-sheet dated 10-01-202 was also annexed wherein following charges were levelled against them:

vkjksi Øekad 1 & vkids fo:} egkfo?kky; esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh }kjk ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h gS] ftlesa vkids fo:} Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 354 354¼v½ 354¼c½ 354¼l½ 354¼n½ 509¼v½ 509¼c½ iathc} dh x;h gS] tks fdlh efgyk deZpkjh ds fo:} fd;k x;k d`R; dnkpj.k ,oa vuSfrdrk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS] ftlls egkfo?kky; dh Nfo ,oa v/;;ujr Nk= & Nk=kvksa ij foifjr ÁHkko iM+rk] tks xaHkhj vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSaA

vkjksi Øekad 2 & vkids }kjk Áca/ku dks vlR;] feF;k ,oa xqejkg djus okyh tkudkjh Ásf"kr dh xbZ Fkh] tks dnkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA

vkjksi Øekad 3 & vkids }kjk vukf/kd`r :i ls egkfo?kky; ds fo"k; esa vuko';d tkudkjh nwljs laLFkkvksa dks Ásf"kr fd;k x;k gS] ftlls egkfo?kky; dh Nfo Nwfey gksrh gS] tks dnkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA

vkjksi Øekad 4 & Ákpk;Z ds i= Øekad 769@Lkk@2018] fcykliqj fnukad 31-01-2018 dks Ásf"kr vkjksi i= dk tokc ugha fn;k tkuk] Ákpk;Z ds vkns'k dk mYya?ku tSls xaHkhj dnkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA

5. The petitioners submitted their reply on 12-01-2022 denying the allegations made in the charge sheet mainly contending that the copy of the FIR has not been provided to them on basis of which charges of misconduct and moral turpitude have been levelled against them. It is also submitted that they may be provided copy of the FIR and the documents as detailed in their reply. The petitioners have also demanded certain documents regarding charges No. 1 to 4. It has been specifically contended that due to non supply of these documents it is difficult for them to defend their case properly which causes prejudice to defend their case. As such, it is necessary that the documents as demanded by them be supplied. They have also demanded appointment of legal representative to defend them in the departmental enquiry as well as list of witnesses to be examined in the enquiry.

6. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the respondents without giving any consideration to the reply submitted by the petitioner have appointed Enquiry Officer on 15-01-2022. The petitioners have raised objection before the respondents No. 3 the Principal of the College that they have not been supplied with the relevant documents and the memo dated 15-01-2022 does not specify who has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and under