THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF D.A.V. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, NAWAN SHAHAR DOABA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of Learned Single Judge, dated Jan. 17, 1992 quashing the order of suspension and dismissal from service Annexure P-5 and P-9 respectively of the respondent Gulshan Rai. The facts of the case insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are thus:-

(2.) Respondent Gulshan Rai, hereinafter called the respondent was appointed as a Clerk on Oct. 23, 1981 in the appellant College. The State of Punjab revised the pay scales of the non- teaching employees working in the affiliated private Colleges such as the appellant institution and a higher pay scale was granted in the year 1989 with effect from Jan. 1, 1986. The respondent was accordingly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640- 2,950.00. It appears that on account of the revision, a sum of Rs. 11,000.00 became due to the respondent as arrears which was withheld by the Management and he was infact asked to donate it to the College. The respondent, however, declined to do so and made a representation to the Principal of the College requesting the release of the arrears. He was thereafter called by the Management on a number of occasions and asked to donate the arrears but he refused to do so and instead filed a Civil Suit for the recovery of the amount due to him and simultaneously proceeded on leave. On the expiry of period of leave, when he went to rejoin his office, he found that the office has been locked and the attendance register removed and he was informed by the College Authorities that he had been placed under suspension with effect from June 24, 1989. He was thereafter retrenched from service on the basis of a resolution passed by the Management on July 4, 1989 which has been appended as Annexure P-9 to the petition. The learned Single Judge found on a consideration of documents on record that the action taken against the respondent was not bonafide and the reasons given in Annexure P-9 for getting rid of the respondent were not borne out by the facts placed before him. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petition as already indicated above.

(3.) Mr. Girish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the arguments that had been pressed before the Learned Single Judge. He has urged that the finding, that the reasons leading to the making of the order, Annexure P-9, were not based on correct appreciation of the facts on record, was erroneous, in as much as it was clear that the services of the respondent had been retrenched as the Management was short of funds and it was not possible to pay the respondent his salary on account of refusal of the Punjab Government to sanction the grant-in-aid for the post that he was holding.