MANJUSHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner allowing the appeal filed by the Management in the proceedings under Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act'). THE Financial Commissioner was setting aside the order passed by the Director General of Higher Education directing reinstatement of the petitioner on the ground that the order issued by the Management of the College that the petitioner had vacated her post on failure to join the post within the stipulated time, was contrary to the provision of the Act, as one was passed without necessary sanction from the Director. THE Director General of Higher Education had found that there had been violation of Section 7(1) of the Act insofar as the termination resulted without any form of inquiry and that no approval of the Director had been obtained in the manner contemplated under Section 7(2) of the Act.

(2.) IN allowing for the appeal filed by the Management, the Financial Commissioner was considering an extraordinary case of an extraordinary situation. The Commissioner found that the absence of the petitioner was for as long as a period of 10 years and the periodical extensions which the petitioner was getting, was always conditional that she must rejoin. The medical certificates which she had been sending from USA for the last 10 years at sporadic intervals, did not show any hospitalization or a medical condition that disabled her from work. It recorded merely some chronic ailments like hypertension, ulcers etc. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, found that when the Management was giving her a last chance to rejoin within a particular time failing which it would be taken that her post had become vacant, was actually acting with reasonable restraint. The Financial Commissioner also found fault with the petitioner who had literally no interest in the welfare of the students and had blocked an effective usage of the sanctioned strength of the College. The Financial Commissioner took notice of the fact that the petitioner was literally on extraordinary leave from 07.04.2000 to 07.04.2010, even when Rule 26 of the Conduct Rules provided no more than a limit of 5 years as extraordinary leave under the Kurukshetra University Calendar.

(3.) BEFORE me, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Guru Nank University, Amritsar and others v. Jaspal Singh, 2011(2) SCR 584 where the Court was considering that in a case of removal from service on the allegation of over-stayed leave, an inquiry is mandated by law despite the fact that the Service Regulation provided for automatic termination. The learned counsel relies on this judgment to bring home the point that a mere absence from the College for a period of 10 years when she had secured permission various times, could not result in the post being vacated for the only reason that in the last spell she was not able to join within the time stipulated by the Management. The over-stayed leave must have been a cause for constituting an inquiry under Section 7(1) of the Act and without a sanction from the Director as contemplated under Section 7(2) of the Act her services could not have been terminated. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment rendered by this Court in Dr. Bimla Malik v. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.6789 of 2010 in which I have held that a termination of service could not be effected without undertaking the procedure established by law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedure as prescribed by law had not been followed and, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner was erroneous.