Honble R.S. VERMA, J.—Petitioner was a permanent Lecturer in Structural Engineering under University of Jodhpur. Services of the petitioner were terminated by the Registrar of Jodhpur University in pursuance of ordinance 327 (5) and a decision taken by the Syndicate of the University at its meeting held on 9.10.1982. This was done by issuing order Annexure 9 dated 23.11.1982. By this writ petition the petitioner assails the legality and validity of Annexure 9 and contends that termination of his service is bad in law and Annexure 9 may be quashed and respondent University be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

2. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent who contends that petitioner remained willfully absent from duty for a sufficiently long period; he did not join duty inspite of having been called upon to do so; it was the petitioner who had brought the contract of service to an end; the order Ex. 9 was only a formal way of putting seal of approval on such conduct of the petitioner and hence petitioners termination of service was lawful and valid.

3. Here, I may briefly indicate some salient features of the case which are not in dispute. A case under Sec. 302, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and certatn other persons in Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur and the police was trying to arrest the petitioner as would be evident from Ex. 12 placed by the petitioner on record. However, the petitioner could not be arrested for quite some time. Since the petitioner was a Lecturer under the University, he submitted an application for grant of casual leave from 20.2.82 to 28.2.82.

4. It appears that petitioner moved applications from time to time for extension of the leave but the same were not granted. The case of the petitioner is that he had been keeping ill and was at Bombay in connection with treatment and he could not attend to his duties for the period 20.3.82 to 12.12.82.

5. It appears that in the meanwhile, University of Jodhpur issued a press release Annexure 3 asking the petitioner to resume duty within a period of 15 days otherwise proceedings would be taken against him. The petitioner appears to have sent reply to this press release through his Advocate vide Ex-4. Thereafter, the University issued another notice by way of a press release dated 13.10.82 whereby the petitioner was called upon to report on duty by 20.11.82 failing which his services shall be terminated. Petitioner again appears to have replied to this notice by letter Annexure 7 and requested the University to extend his leave further. This met a dead end and the University terminated his services by issuing order Annexure 3.

6. The principal contention of Shri M. Mridul is that services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without taking necessary disciplinary proceedings. Since no proceedings were taken against the petitioner as per law, the order terminating services is bad. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to the provisions of Ordinance 327(5) as also to the provisions of Appendix B issued under Ordinance 320. A brief reference to the relevant provisions would be in order at this juncture. Clause 7 and 8 of this appendix read as follows:

"7. The teacher may at any time terminate his/her engagement by giving the Syndicate three months notice in writing or by payment of an amount equal to three months salary in lieu of the notice. Provided that the V.C. may waive the requirement of notice for its full period or part thereof.

8. The engagement of and the penalties to be imposed on the teacher shall not be determined except in the manner provided hereinafter in the Schedule-II."

7. Relevant provisions of Schedule II are contained in clause 3 which reads as follows :-

3. Suspension and Termination :

The Syndicate shall be entitled to suspend and/or determine the engagement of the teacher on grounds of grave misconduct and/or persistent negligence of duty, in the manner heseinafter provided :

Procedure for imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document