SURESHCHANDRA HIRALAL PANDYA SINCE DECEASED Vs. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of Learned Single Judge dated 21.1.2000. Even for dealing with preliminary objection of the respondent that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable in view of decision of the full Bench of this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M Mogal and others dated 26.12.2013, it would be necessary to advert to brief facts.

(2.) Respondent no.1 in the writ petition was appointed as a principal in a college run by one Maharshhi Dayanand Saraswati Kelavani Mandal the original petitioner. He was placed on probation for a period of one year. He joined his duty on 21.10.1982. During the period of probation, finding that his service was not satisfactory, he was given a notice on 3.10.1983 and after affording an opportunity of hearing by an order dated 17.10.1983, his service came to be terminated. This order of termination, he challenged before the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Tribunal ("the tribunal" for short) by filing an appeal. The same appeal came to be allowed. The management was directed to consider the question after holding inquiry. Pursuant to such order, initially a tentative decision was taken and approval of ViceChancellor was sought. Such approval was refused by the ViceChancellor, upon which, the management approached the tribunal, who allowed the appeal. The proposal of termination of service was approved. The employee thereupon approached the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No.5255/1984. Pending such petition, pursuant to the order of the tribunal, management passed an order terminating the service of the principal on 18.10.1984 and his services actually came to be terminated with effect from 31.10.1984. This order was challenged by him before the tribunal. The tribunal held that termination was punitive in nature and was made without holding any inquiry as provided under section 14 of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Act, 1982, and therefore, bad in law. The tribunal directed that respondent no.1 be retained in service as a professor.

(3.) The High Court held that termination of the principal was not punitive but a simplicitor termination. The order was not stigmatic. No inquiry under section 14 of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Act, 1982, was warranted. It was held that the procedure adopted was not violative of section 14 of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Act, 1982. Learned Judge therefore, allowed the petition and set aside the judgement of the tribunal dated 8.4.1988. Termination of respondent no.1 was upheld.