Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
VIRENDER SINGH, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ.
Birsa Agricultural University - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Anant Prasad Jaiswal, son of Late Banarsi Prasad Jaiswal & Anr. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 417 of 2014
Decided on : 29-07-2016
Service Law – The petitioner has pleaded that the enquiry should have started fro m the very beginning either after the order of removal was quashed by the court or after the writ petition was permitted – Contention that the Clause 13.9(3) and (4) states that the disciplinary authority is under an obligation to disclose the reasons for removal to the delinquent employee – it is submitted that the order of dismissal had been quashed on the grounds of not giving the delinquent and opportunity of hearing – Writ petition against the order was allowed when the delinquent was again dismissed after giving him a hearing – It has been held here that the delinquent is not entitled for enquiry from the beginning. It has been held that the writ court had wrongly remanded the matter to the authority and the order of the writ court is put aside and cancelled – The enquiry report was complete – The committee has given a detailed order – Writ court had questioned the penalty only and it had not said anything about the legality of the enquiry conducted – The respondent has not objected to the report – The plea of the respondent is that the proceedings are not conducted on day to day basis and no witness was produced – Documents not given to him by university which were used against him – All these pleas were taken by the respondent in the writ court for the first time – her hasn’t challenged the enquiry prior to this – The enquiry report hasn’t been challenged – The appeal is permitted. The fact that the enquiry report was made known to the respondent and the second show cause notice clearly show that he was aware that a major penalty is going to be given to him and the respondent has not challenged the notice – The writ court has been found to ignore many important details in this matter – The writ had wrongly allowed the petition of the respondent on the grounds that a few of the charges were proved – Appointing authority has clearly decided that all the charges have been proved against the respondent – Appointing authority and enquiry committee both have fund the misconduct on the part of the respondent and all he had not joined the post after a very long absence – Second show cause notice cannot be held to be invalid only due to mistake in the construction of a sentence and the penalty imposed cannot be set aside in the manner writ court did. It has been held that the organisation should maintain the discipline inside it by taking the conduct of its employees into consideration and the employees should also be punished if they are indisciplined – The respondent served a leave for absence which was rejected by the dean – He remained absent for an unauthorised period – Misconduct – the chancellor did not interfere with the removal – The court also confirmed the order of the removal by the disciplinary authority – Payment of salary for the period of absence doesn’t mean that the conduct of the employee has been ignored – The cases where an employee is given a leave without pay the conduct is taken into consideration – Thus to maintain the discipline the punishment given to the respondent has been upheld. In the same matter the question of back wages comes forward – The order of the writ court that the respondent employee has to be reinstated in service with all the back wages and consequential benefits on the grounds that the principles of natural justice have been ignored – The respondent has been proved to take unnecessary long absence from the office and his misconduct has been proved – The plea of the petitioner that the university has exploited him cannot be sustained as he has not been able to prove this – University has rightly removed the respondent on proved misconduct as he has not been able to explain his absence from office for the whole year. (Para 34)
It has been held that the Writ court cannot intervene in a matter related to disciplinary action taken against a delinquent employee – The Writ court findings that the plea of the university is not Vailid – Writ court has held that the punishment given to the respondent employee is enough and he shall be allowed to join to the post where he was transferred – University not in favour of this – The university statute gives power to take action against its employees so court cannot decide what punishment has to be given to the delinquent employees. It has been held that in the govt educational services the maintenance of discipline by the staff is of prime importance – The departmental proceedings have correctly punished the delinquent employee and removed him from service on the allegations like misconduct and not maintaining discipline in the office – Writ court is not correct to go into the legality of the order removal as it was based on proper proceedings of the department concerned – The order of the writ court is cancelled.
Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3897 of 2011, whereby penalty of removal from service inflicted upon respondent-writ petitioner was quashed with all consequential benefits, is under challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as respondent) was appointed as Junior Scientist–Assistant Professor, Soil (Agro Forestry) in the Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, on 05.11.1990. He was transferred, on 25.08.2003, to ZRS, Dumka and was relieved from his office on 26.08.2003. However, he did not join his new posting. Several reminders were issued to him and a notice was also published in the newspaper, requiring him to join at the new posting. On the allegations of misconduct, indiscipline, unauthorized absence from duty etc., a chargememo was served upon him and he was put under suspension on 29.10.2003. The respondent denied the charges. The enquiry committee submitted a report on 17.03.2004 and a second show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 19.04.2004. The respondent submitted his reply, making allegation against one of the members of the enquiry committee. The Vice-Chancellor of the University imposed penalty of termination from service vide order dated 26.06.2004, which was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal before the Chancellor, who came to a conclusion that through the second show cause notice proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service was set aside vide order dated 10.06.2005, remitting the matter to the appointing authority to pass appropriate order after hearing the respondent. The reconstituted enquiry committee issued notice to the respondent who appeared on 10.08.2006 before the committee and again made accusations against one of the members of the committee. A report was submitted by the committee on 19.09.2006 and second show cause notice dated 06.12.2010 was issued to the respondent. The Vice-Chancellor again passed order of dismissal from service on 15.05.2008, which was challenged by the respondent before the Chancellor who dismissed his appeal on 05.07.2009. Application seeking review of the appellate order dated 05.07.2009 filed by the respondent was dismissed on 20.03.2010. The aforesaid orders were, thereafter, challenged by the respondent before this Court in W.P.(S) No.1558 of 2010. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.11.2010, on the ground that in terms of subclause (3) and (4) to Clause 13.9 of the Statute of Birsa Agricultural University, the disciplinary authority is required to communicate to the delinquent the grounds on which he proposes to impose a major penalty. Thereafter, the second show cause dated 06.12.2010 was issued to the respondent, who responded through letter dated 21.12.2010 seeking clarification and supply of documents. The Vice-Chancellor, Birsa Agricultural University formed the opinion that the misconduct, indiscipline and willful disobedience committed by the respondent warrants penalty of removal from service and he passed order dated 03.01.2011 in the aforesaid terms. This is the order impugned by the respondent before the Writ Court in the present proceeding. The appeal preferred by the respondent before the appellate authority failed on 23.02.2011 and the appellate order was also challenged by filing an interlocutory application in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the enquiry committee did not afford proper opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case and penalty of removal from service was passed in breach of Clause 13.9 of the Statute of the University. The penalty order and the appellate order, both were quashed and the respondent was reinstated with all consequential benefits. The respondent was directed to join his transferred post at ZRS, Dumka. In the aforesaid background, the appellant-Birsa Agricultural University is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
