UMA KANT SRIVASTAVA Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of termination of services of the petitioner as a Professor by the respondent No. 1 Indian Institute of Management (IIM for short) vide its letter/order dated 5.1.1993 (Annex.A).

(2.) The facts of the petition in brief are that the petitioner had joined respondent no. 1 IIM on 6.9.1973 as Assistant Professor in Economics and was confirmed on 1.7.1974 and thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor in 1976 and as Professor in the year 1978. Further it is stated that the respondent institute was affiliated with Gujarat University and the petitioner was recognised guide for PHD students of Gujarat University. Thus the petitioner has rendered 19 1/2 years unblamished services to the respondent institute. During the service period it is stated the petitioner has written and published about 28 Books on Allied subject and out of these books 18 books have been published by the respondent Institute and the respondent institute itself is recovering royalities out of those books. Thus the petitioner has earned name and fame as an author and professor not only in respondent institute but also worldwide. However the services of the petitioner came to be terminated all of a sudden by the order dated 5.1.1993 (Annex.A) and a cheque towards 3 months salary in lieu of notice period of 3 months has been given along with impugned order of termination. Hence this petition.

(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. P.V. Nanavaty learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of termination is punitive in nature is bad in law as it is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of provisions of sec. 51 A of the Gujarat Universities Act liable to be quashed and set aside under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated on his original post. In support of his arguments Mr. P.V.Nanavaty learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions : [1] AIR 1984 SC 1631 [2] AIR 1986 SC 1573 [3] AIR 1992 SC 72 [4] AIR 1993 SC 392 [5] GLH 1993 407 [6] (1993) 1 SCC 629 [7] Judgment dt. 20.5.1993 of the Division Bench in Spl. C.A. No. 8555/88 AND [8] Judgment dt. 1.5.1979 of the Division Bench in Spl. C.A. No.133/76 & Allied Matters.