SUDHIR SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.10.2003 (Annexure P.4) to the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner holds the qualifications of M.A. (Punjabi), LL.B., Diploma in Computer Operator, Post Graduate Diploma in Management and Postgraduate Diploma in Marketing Management. He was appointed on ad hoc basis as a Data Entry Operator against the post of Technician, Grade -II (Teaching Aid) in the respondent -University on 21.8.2002. The appointment of the petitioner was initially for period of six months or till the vacancy was filled on regular basis whichever is earlier. The appointment order itself provided that the appointment shall be terminable by either party at any time without any notice. The appointment was also conditional: subject to the receipt of a report of verification of character antecedents of the petitioner from the concerned department. In case it was found that the character and antecedents of the petitioner were not satisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated without any notice. The appointment was further extended from 21.12.2002 to 30.6.2003 on the same terms and conditions. The term was again extended on 1.9.2003 for six months, by order of July 3, 2003, During the last extension, the Registrar of the respondent -University issued order No. 30038/ Estt./S -5 dated 21.10.2003, terminating the services of the petitioner. This order is said to have been issued by the order of the Vice Chancellor for the negligence and violation of discipline by the employee. The entire order reads as follows: -

(3.) WRITTEN statement has been filed by the respondents. The extentions in the employment of the petitioner are admitted. It has however been stated that the petitioner has collected money from the users of the Internet Access Lab. The users were students or employees of the University. The answering -respondent had checked the utilization of the lab along with two other officials of the University Computer Centre on 15.10.2002 at 5.35 P.M. It was observed that although the lab was full of users but none of the users was issued the receipt before allowing to use the system. On checking the record register it was found that only six entries of the students/users had been made in the register maintained for the purpose for that day till 5.30 p.m.. The team had observed the ill -intention of the petitioner and was asked to issue the receipts on the spot. Thereafter, the Store Keeper -cum -Purchase Assistant of the Centre who was a member of the team was asked by the answering -respondent to monitor the number of users on 16.10.2003. It was found on the very next day i.e. 16.10.2003 that there were 77 users/students. Previously the average number of users shown in the register were 30 to 40. After the termination of services of the petitioner, another employee of the University of the Computer Centre was put on the same job who recorded the average number of users as 70 to 80. It is also stated that there was no complaint against the conduct of the petitioner and extension in his service had been recommended as pleaded. Replication has been filed by the petitioner. It has been stated that the register which was checked by the team was in accordance with the procedure. Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the short ground that it has been passed by way of punishment. The order is stigmatic in nature. As a consequence of the aforesaid order, the brilliant career of the petitioner would be prejudicially affected. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the respondents to comply with the rules of natural justice before passing the order of termination. Even if the respondents had the right in law not to further grant extension in the ad hoc appointment, they had no jurisdiction to stigmatise the character of the petitioner.