ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.1.2020, passed by the respondent/University; whereby, the services of the petitioner has been terminated.

2. It is argued that objection is being taken with respect to the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action taken by the private respondent. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent/University is running various Educational Institutions including the People’s College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Bhopal and has performing the public functions and looking to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Shrivastava, reported in 2019 (4) Scale 600 the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable as against the private unaided educational institutions also if they are performing the public duties and imparting education. Considering the fact that the respondent/University is imparting education is performing public duty, this Court deems it appropriate to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner is a registered Dental Practitioner under the State Dental Association, Madhya Pradesh and was appointed as a Senior Lecturer by the respondent vide order dated 19.5.2011.

4. He is a renowned Medical Practitioner and a Surgeon since last 13 years and has been recognized by the Dental Fraternity and various Organizations. The respondent/University is running various Educational Institutions including People’s College of Dental Science and Research Centre and performing public functions. After appointment of the petitioner and looking to his qualification skills and performance he was promoted to the post of Reader after completion of four years of teaching experience as Senior Lecturer on 20.5.2015. All of a sudden, a letter has been issued on 11.1.2020 informing the petitioner that his services has been terminated. It is submitted that Annexure A-1, the impugned order is a non speaking order assigning no reasons regarding discontinuation of service of the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order reflects that the services of the petitioner has been discontinued in pursuance to the order dated 19.5.2011 i.e. appointment order of the petitioner. The conditions of governing the services of the petitioner, Article-9 deals with termination and provides that the services can be terminated by granting one month’s notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof and the services can be terminated without giving any notice with immediate effect during probation in case the trust was not satisfied with the work and performance or in case any breach has been committed or any instance of misconduct, gross negligence, etc. is done by the employee. It is submitted that no such conditions are being fulfilled by the respondents nor are being reflected from the impugned order. No reasons are being assigned regarding termination of the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that the order impugned is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order with a prayer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order. It is pointed out that the petitioner’s services were terminated owing to the fact that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and he was arrested on 4.1.2020. The aforesaid aspect was suppressed by the petitioner from the respondent/University, but the respondent/University came to know about the same and in pursuance to the same immediate action was taken and the services