SALAHUDDIN AHMED SIDDIQUI Vs. CHAIRMAN GOVERNING BODY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I shall dispose of both the Petitions filed by Dr. Salahuddin Ahmed Siddiqui. Prayers in the first Petition seek the issuance of a Writ, order or direction against the Respondents for complying with the unanimous decision of Respondent No.2 dated 1.2.2001 and for bestowing upon the Petitioner all the benefits due to him consequent upon his reinstatement. In the second Petition a Writ, order or direction has been preferred for disposing of the Petitioner's Representation dated 19.3.2001 seeking the passing of an additional arbitration Award pursuant to the provision of Section 33(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in view of a compromise arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondents No.1 and 2.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was serving as a Reader in the Department of Economics, in Shaheed Bhagat Singh (Evening College), University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the College') but his services were terminated on 23.12.1997 with the approval of the Vice Chancellor. In February, 1998 an Appeal was filed before the Vice President of India, who is also the Chancellor of the University of Delhi. The Appeal Committee was constituted under Clause 9 of the Agreement of Services for College Teachers. By letter dated 11.4.2000 the Chairman of the College Governing Body informed the Appeal Committee that at its Meeting held on 30.11.1999, it had authorised the Chairman to review the Petitioner's case. Accordingly, a prayer for postponement of proceedings of the Appeal Committee for two months had been requested for and granted. The Principal of the College, on the instructions of the Chairman of the Governing Body, again requested for an adjournment of proceedings before the Appeal Committee. Thereafter, at the Meeting of the Governing Body dated 1.2.2001 (at which the Nominee of the University, namely, Professor Davendra Mishra was present), it was noted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were baseless and legally untenable as he had not been given adequate opportunity by the previous Governing Body to plead his case. It was unanimously decided by the Governing Body at which the University's Nominee was present, that the Petitioner should be reinstated and all benefits due to him consequent upon his reinstatement should be restored. The Resolution reads as follows: After careful review of the whole case, the Governing Body unanimously decided that Dr. S.A. Siddiqui, Ex. Reader in Economics, be reinstated and all benefits due to him consequent upon his reinstatement be restored.

(3.) The Principal thereupon addressed a letter dated 2.2.2001 to the Appeal Committee informing it of the reinstatement of the Petitioner and of the resolution of the disputes before the Arbitrator. The Appeal Committee was requested to wind-up the arbitration proceedings. By letter of even date the Principal made a similar request to the Appeal Committee. However, the Appeal Committee has published an Award dated 25.1.2001, a copy of which is available in CWP No.5584/2001. It has not been filed in CWP No.1927/2003 although the Index dated 2.9.2003, by which the Counter Affidavit had been filed, states to the contrary. The operative part of the Award reads thus - The Appeal Committee, having heard the Petitioner and after a careful perusal of all records of the Inquiry and submission of the petitioner and the college authorities, finds that the ground on which the services of the petitioner Shri S.A. Siddiqui were terminated, were valid grounds and the dismissal order was proper and in order . It has been vehemently voiced on behalf of the Petitioner that this Award has been anti-dated and that the occasion of hearing the Petitioner had not arisen as only adjournments were being requested for.