UTTAM KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. KIIT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an ex -employee of KIIT University, Bhubaneswar challenged his termination from services of the KIIT University by order dated 28.06.2011 appearing at Annexure -4 of the writ petition and the consequential order dated 22.06.2011 find place at Annexure -6 directing for complying certain formalities so also for vacating the quarter allotted to him pursuant to his termination from service. The petitioner further seeks direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 4 for supplying the documents mentioned in Annexure -2 in terms of provision as contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(2.) THE petitioner assails the impugned order on two grounds, firstly on the ground that the order of termination has been passed without observing the principle of natural justice and secondly, the findings of the case based on which service of the petitioner is taken away attached stigma in the career of the petitioner and passing such order without holding any enquiry involving the petitioner and in absence of affording any opportunity to the petitioner is not only bad but non est in the eyes of law.

(3.) FURTHER , case of the petitioner is that in order to satisfy the Vice -chancellor in the above regard, he was in need of ten numbers of documents from the records of the examinations for which he had made separate application requisitioning the documents from the Information Department of the university applying provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. Even though the above letter of the petitioner was attended to but, he was not provided with any such document by the time of filing of the writ petition. When the matter stood as above, the petitioner was shocked and surprised to receive the termination letter dated 20.06.2011 from the Registrar of opposite party no. 1, University, which simply indicated that services of the petitioner are no longer required by the University and the competent authority has decided to terminate his service. The petitioner alleged that for taking up the major issues as narrated hereinabove, the management of the university remains antagonized vindictive or became biased which resulted in the impugned order, which is not only an unreason one but also passed in absence of any disciplinary proceeding and not in compliance of natural justice being afforded to the petitioner.