IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bhag Singh Arya .....Appellant Versus Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar & others .....Respondents

1. Reserved on : 12.02.2026 2. Pronounced on : 19.02.2026 3. Uploaded on the website : 19.02.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is : Full pronounced or full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full : Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by : Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Shreenath A Khemka, Advocate and Ms. Tvesha Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J .

1. The appellant/plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1994, passed by learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants, has been partly accepted and the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1994, passed by learned Trial Court has been modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall not be entitled to arrears of salary from the date of acceptance of his resignation to the date of his joining, pursuant to the learned Trial Court decree.

2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position before the learned Trial Court.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff (Bhag Singh), joined the services of Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar on 01.10.1974 as ‘Research Assistant’ and was charge-sheeted on 03.12.1986 allegedly for the charge of wilful and unauthorized absence from duty, disobedience of orders, and violation of Employees Conduct Rules, amounting to gross misconduct. It was further alleged that during the period of his extraordinary leave and absence, he had actively participated in political activities and had led a ‘Jatha’ of farmers on behalf of ‘Janta Party’ on 28.08.1986 and demonstrated before the residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and the office of Superintending Engineer, Haryana, State Electricity Board, Kurukshetra and raised slogans before the Panchayat Bhawan on the same very day, where some dignitaries were present in connection with a training programme, which amounts to violation of Rule 5 (i) of the Employees Conduct Rule. The matter was enquired into by an Enquiry Officer, who submitted an enquiry report dated 06.03.1987 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. However, said inquiry report was not accepted by the Vice Chancellor and consequently, a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed on 03.04.1987. Feeling humiliated, as alleged, the plaintiff submitted his resignation dated 16.04.1987. It is pertinent to note that on the same date, i.e. 16.04.1987, the plaintiff submitted two separate letters. In the first letter, he has submitted that since a departmental enquiry on the same charges had already been conducted, therefore, a second enquiry could not be initiated and he would not attend the fresh Enquiry being unnecessarily harassed. In the second letter, he submitted his resignation, which reads as under-

xxx xxx xxx “Sir, Recently, I have come to know that a second enquiry is being instituted against me on the same charges on which another departmental enquiry has already been conducted. This is un-lawful and nothing but harassment. I have been put under unnecessary suspension since

13.11.1986. I feel that I am being victiminized.

In these circumstances, I do not want to continue in the service and have been compelled to resign. I hereby tender my resignation under protest, with the request that I may be relieved from my duty with effect from 30.04.1987 after noon. The subsistence allowance for the period falling short of one month's notice may be recovered from my subsistence allowance which has not been paid to me right from 13.11.86.

With kindest regards.”

xxx xxx xxx

4. The aforesaid letter of resignation dated 16.04.1987, was accepted vide impugned order dated 16.05.1987, by the Professor & Head