HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR. Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIL Kumar was Laboratory Attendant in the department of Microbiology of Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'HAU' Hisar) appointed vide letter dated 5.5.1997. He joined duty on 5.5.1997. He was charge sheeted on 21/22.11.1984 by the Director of Research, 'HAU' Hisar. He was also charge sheeted by the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology vide letter dated 29.9.1984 on the same allegations. He submitted reply to the appropriate authority. He was removed by the Director of Research. 'HAD' Hisar on 18.11,1985 from the service of the University. He was conveyed the order of his removal from service vide endorsement No. DR/GI/85/PF/4051 -54 dated 18.11.1985. He filed appeal against the order of his removal from service dated 18.11.1985, which was rejected by the Vice Chancellor, HAU Hisar. By means of suit for declaration the plaintiff has challenged the order of his removal from service and also the rejection of his appeal against the order removing him from service saying that he was charge sheeted by the two authorities. He could not have been charge sheeted on the same allegations by the two authorities. He was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report. Charge sheet was illegal and the subsequent proceedings including the holding of enquiry and the passing of order of removal were also illegal, baseless and false charges were levelled against him with a pre -determined mind to save others and to remove him from service. He was called by the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology on 29.9.1984 at 2.30 P.M. to discuss departmental matters in which the alleged charges were discussed and on the other hand the same person had asked his explanation on the same day with the allegations that the incident had been seen by him at 4.40 P.M. on 28.9.1984. From this fact, what emerges is that the charges were concocted and they had been trumped up and inquiry was a ritual intended to lend colour of legality to the order of his removal from service. Removal order was the result of pre -determined mind of the authority. This fact would be apparent from the perusal of letter bearing No. DR(G -1/85/6730 -31, in which the Director of Research, 'HAU' Hisar had proposed to terminated the services of the plaintiff only on the basis of the reply of the plaintiff without holding any enquiry, What was the necessity of holding enquiry when the Director of Research had a pre -determined mind to terminate his services. Procedure adopted in the conduct of enquiry was unknown to law. Enquiry Officer did not consider the fact that no material was placed before him from which he could draw inference viz he was at fault. Enquiry Committee was not constituted by the competent authority and on the basis of the report of such Enquiry Committee, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was against law. No opportunity was given to him to rebut the charges. Order of removal was passed on fact finding enquiry. Order of removal was passed in a mechanical way without considering the evidence and with pre -determined mind. Vice Chancellor did not consider at all his appeal and no order was conveyed to him by Vice Chancellor only. Additional Director of Research, 'HAU' Hisar informed him that his appeal had been considered and rejected. Order of removal contravenes the principles of natural justice. It was prayed that it be declared that the order of removal dated 18.11.1985 passed by the Director of Research, 'HAU' Hisar was illegal, against law and fact, mala fide having no effect on his rights and that he be deemed always to have been in the service of the University since the date of his appointment without any break and that he was entitled to all the benefits towards pay and allowances etc. with effect from the date he was removed from the service. It was also prayed that the order of Vice -Chancellor rejecting his appeal was also illegal.

(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that 'HAU' Hisar is not a "State" nor it is covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such he is not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. There was simple relationship of master and servant between him and 'HAU' Hisar. Only suit for damages was maintainable, if his feeling was that he had been unduly weeded out of service. He could not claim reinstatement into service with back wages. It was urged that he was rightly charge sheeted. He was rightly removed from service. His removal from service was quite legal, just and proper and the rejection of his appeal by the Vice Chancellor was equally legal, just and proper and according to the rules and statute of 'HAU' Hisar. Assuming that charge sheet issued by the Director of Research, 'HAU' Hisar was not in order, there was no illegality in the charge sheet issued to him by the Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology on the same allegations. Fact finding report was not required to be supplied to the delinquent . It was denied that the charges were tramped up with a pre -determined mind to remove him from service. Enquiry was conducted according to rules and statute of HALT Hisar.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD