Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
Sanjay Kumar Kar - Appellant
Versus
Principal-cum-secretary Bhadrak Institute Od Engineering And Technology & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 22221 of 2010
Decided On : 19-02-2019
Mr. A.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with M/s. J.Sengupta, D.K.Panda, G.Sinha and A.Mishra, Advocates, for the appellant; M/s A.Pattnaik and B.Baisakh, Advocates, for the Respondent
Cases Referred
Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487
Antaryami Rath vs. State of Orissa, 70 1990 C.L.T. 642
Basanti Mohanty vs. State of Orissa, 70 1991 C.L. T. 127
Chandra Mohan Khanna vs. National Council of Education Research and Training, (1991) 1 SCC 578 : AIR 1992 SC 76
Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University, AIR 2016 SC 73
Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. KITT University, (2014) Supp.-11 OLR 852
Gulam Abbas vs. State Of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 2198
K. Krishnamacharyulu vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering, AIR 1998 SC 295
P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharastra, (2005) 5 Supreme 544
Pradip Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111
R.D.Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Ramesh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331
Sabhaijit Tewary vs. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1329
Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607
Smt Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621
Smt. Susama Patnaik vs. Managing Committee, Baxi Jagabandhu English Medium School, (1992) I O.L.R. 503
Som Prakash vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212 State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131
T. M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 2003 SC 355, 438 Tekraj Vasandi alias Basandi vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469
U. P.Warehousing Corporation vs. Vijay Narain, AIR 1980 SC 840 Unni Krishan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645
Virendra Kumar Srivastava vs. U.P. Raiva Karmachari Kalyan Nigam, AIR 2005 SC 411 Zee Tele Films Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 355
A private body performing public duty is amenable to writ jurisdiction, and termination orders must comply with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
BIET - Termination of Service - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - [Societies Registration Act, 1860] - The court discussed the maintainability of the writ application against the private technical educational institution under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It held that a private body performing public duty is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court also discussed the compliance of principles of natural justice in the termination of service and quashed the termination order due to non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The matter was relegated to the inquiry committee for a de novo inquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering at BIET, was terminated from service without compliance of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner approached the court seeking direction for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing by the inquiry committee at the stage of inquiry, leading to non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the termination order and relegated the matter to the inquiry committee for a de novo inquiry.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the writ application against the private technical educational institution under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. Compliance of principles of natural justice in the termination of service. 3. Relief to be granted to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a private body performing public duty is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It also found that the termination order was passed without compliance of principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the termination order and relegation of the matter to the inquiry committee for a de novo inquiry.
Final Decision: The court quashed the termination order and relegated the matter to the inquiry committee for a de novo inquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
B.R. Sarangi, J. - Bhadrak Institute of Engineering and Technology (BIET), an unaided private technical institution approved and guided by (AICTE), is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is imparting education to the students and thereby discharging a public duty. Initially, it was affiliated to Fakir Mohan University, Balasore and subsequently to the Biju Pattnaik University of Technology (BPUT). It is a constituent unit of Barapada School of Engineering and Technology (BSET) and, as such, a separate entity constituted as per the guidelines of the AICTE.
2. The BIET issued an advertisement for selection of Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering, pursuant to which the petitioner applied for and following due process of selection was selected. He joined as Lecturer of Computer Science and Engineering, pursuant to letter dated 03.01.1998. Subsequently, he became the Head of the Department of Computer Science and I.T., being a Senior Lecturer. His scale of pay with corresponding D.A. was enhanced with effect from 01.05.1998 as a mark of recognition of his excellent performance, vide office order dated 31.03.1999, but the same was not given effect to. He was appointed as Examiner (Theory) for the Bachelor of Engineering University Examination, vide letter dated 20.07.2006, and also was nominated as a member of the Board of Studies in the subject of Computer Science for the session 200607, vide letter dated 05.12.2006, by the Fakir Mohan University, Balasore. As the BIET was affiliated to the BPUT, because of its performance, the petitioner was deputed as Supervisor for semester examinations of B.Tech courses in the years 2008 and 2009, vide letters dated 22.04.2008, 26.11.2008 and 17.12.2009. He was a member of Anti-Ragging Committee to maintain discipline and prevent ragging in the campus, including hostels of the institute, as per office notice dated 27.08.2009 and became the Head of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
3. All on a sudden, the petitioner was marked as on leave in the attendance register, while he was very much present in the institute and campus, and consequentially he could not sign in the attendance register, though he was present during the scheduled time. Consequentially, he informed opposite party no.1 by filing application on the very same day seeking permission to attend his duties and corrective steps onwards. But on 31.03.2010, the petitioner was issued with a letter by opposite party no.1 in connection with his involvement in an untoward incident occurred on 23.03.2010 inside the campus by the hostel boarders. On enquiry, it was found that his presence in the campus was undesirable till normalcy was restored. Therefore, on the basis of the verbal order of the competent authority, the petitioner was directed to remain on leave with immediate effect till further information from opposite party no.1 was received. Consequentially, the petitioner had to wait for further information from opposite party no. 1. The petitioner, having not received any communication from opposite party no.1, in response to his letter dated 26.05.2010, reminded once again vide letter dated 14.07.2010 and sought for clarification as to the duration of his leave and the date on which he should rejoin his duties. During these periods, the petitioner has neither been paid his legitimate dues nor allowed to discharge his duty, nor was any response made to the correspondence made by him to opposite party no.1. Consequentially, he made a representation on 02.11.2010 and when no response was received, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was directed to appear on 08.08.2011 before the authorities and when he did so he was handed over a letter dated 04.07.2011. In the said letter, the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry committee already constituted by the authorities. Though the petiti
