HARI SINGH GOUR VISHWAVIDYALAYA Vs. MANNU LAL RAJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question tenability of an order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No.4815/2001.

(2.) Facts in brief goes to show that respondent Shri Mannu Lal Rajak was working as Chowkidar in the establishment of the University. He was appointed on compassionate ground after his father died in harness. On account of repeated absence unauthorizedly without leave and because of his negligence in performance of duties as certain theft took place in the University campus, he was placed under suspension on 16.4.1999 and thereafter, a charge sheet dated 22.5.1999 Annexure P/4 was issued to him. In the charge sheet five imputation of allegations were leveled against him mainly pertaining to his unauthorized absence and the result of which was a theft in the University. A departmental enquiry was conducted and based on the finding recorded in the departmental enquiry, he was removed from service. Appeal preferred having also been rejected, the respondent employee filed the writ petition. In the Writ Petition, the learned Writ Court found that an ex-parte enquiry without proper notice to him has been conducted, statutory rules in the matter of issuing notice has not been complied with and therefore, the termination order has been set aside, matter was remanded back for conduct of enquiry from the stage of submission of reply and the liberty is granted to the department to take action for regularizing the intervening period after completion of enquiry. The entire action has been taken in accordance to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others, 1993 4 SCC 727. Challenging this order of the Writ Court, this writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant made a three fold submission. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel was that in the face of the admission to the charges by the respondent employee and the manner in which the proceeding has been held, it was not appropriate on the part of the Writ Court to remand the matter for fresh enquiry as the material available on record does show that employee has admitted the guilt.