GURUDAS COLLEGE & ANR Vs. RAM NANDAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 31st July, 1995, passed by Rabin Bhattacharjee, J. in Civil Rule No. 11295(W) of 1980, whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge allowed the writ application filed by the writ - petitioner - respondent.

(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

(3.) The writ-petitioner-respondent was appointed as Bearer in Physics Department of Gurudas College on 1.12.67. He was confirmed later on ; but with a retrospective effect from the aforementioned date. According to the writ - petitioner - respondent, owing to his illness, he had to remain absent from 6.12.80 to 15.2.81. According to him, he joined on 20.8.81 and worked till 4.1.82. Thereafter he was prevented from putting his signature in the Attendance Register by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 in the writ petition also asked him not to work or resume his duties till a decision is taken by the Governing Body. He however, resumed his duty on 1.3.82 and in terms of his letter dated 8.3.82 as contained in annexure 'D' to the writ application he again filed an application on 12.3.82, stating that he could not attend his duties on 3rd, 10th, 11th and 12th March, 1982 due to unavoidable reasons. Employees of the college allegedly went on strike but they resumed their duty from 12.4.82. Thereafter the writ - petitioner went on leave in terms of his letter dated 5.5.82. According to the writ - petitioner, he also filed his medical reports along with his leave application. However, he was not allowed to sign the attendance register although he joined his duties and submitted his application for leave along with medical certificate issued by a doctor at Patna for the period 10.4.82 to 18.7.82. The writ - petitioner wrote a letter dated 24.7.82 to the Principal stating that be is doing his usual duties and thus he should be allowed to sign attendance register. On 1.8.82, he was not allowed to do his usual work, whereafter a lawyer's notice was served. The writ - petitioner filed the writ application on 12.10.82. In the writ application, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The only contention raised before the learned trial Judge as also before us by the appellant, is that the Governing Body in terms of the meeting dated 11.9.86 purported to be relying on or on the basis of the report of the Principal of the College, inter alia, came to the conclusion that he had been absenting from duties. The Governing Body of the College thus invoked the provisions of Rule 9(W) of the Calcutta University First Statutes, 1979 and resolved that the writ - petitioner would be deemed to have resigned from his post, and accordingly ceased to be in the employment of the college.