HINDU EDUCATION SOCIETY REGD Vs. SHYAM SUNDER PASRIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the appellant-society that the points raised by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) challenging the order, dated 14th November, 1981, with regard to his suspension and the order, dated 4th October, 1985 regarding the termination of his services was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and quashed the aforesaid orders on the ground that the same were passed by the authority not competent to do so.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant-society runs a private college, namely Shri Lal Nath Hindu College, Rohtak, and the respondent was working as a Lecturer in the said College at the relevant time. The appellant issued a charge sheet to the respondent for certain acts of misconduct and after holding an inquiry, proposed to impose penalty of dismissal from service and referred the proposal with the record to the Director of Higher Education, Haryana, for approval as required under Section 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Act, 1979 (in short, the Act ). The Director, vide his letter, dated 18th May, 1983, rejected the proposal submitted by the appellant on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Officer suffered from procedural infirmities. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the state Government under Section 11 of the Act, and the said appeal was rejected by the State Government, vide order, dated 26th October, 1983. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant in C. W. P. No. 387 of 1984 in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment, dated 6th September, 1984 (reported as Hindu Education Society (Regd.) v. The State of Haryana and Ors. , 1984 (3) Services Law Reporter 717, allowed the writ petition, quashing the aforesaid orders, dated 18th May, 1983 and 26th October, 1983, and remitted the matter to the Director for taking appropriate action under sub section (b) of Section 7 of the Act. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under : "thus while exercising powers under section 7 (4) of the Act on remittal of the matter to him, he inter alia, would take into consideration whether he should approve the proposed penalty or reduce it to the extent permissible under the rules. " The parties through their counsel were directed to put in appearance before the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, on 10th October, 1984. It will be relevant to point out here that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondent in L. P. A. No. 1132 of 1984, which was dismissed on 11th March, 1985.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order dated 5. 9. 1985, passed by the Director, Higher Education, the appellant-Management passed the formal order of termination on 4th October, 1985. Aggrieved by the order, dated 5th September, 1985, passed by the Director, Higher Education, the respondent preferred the revision petition before the state Government, under section 11 of the Act, which was considered and accepted vide order, dated 6th April, 1987, passed by Smt. Shar-da Rani, the then Education Minister, Haryana. The relevant portion from the said order is reproduced herein below: "at my own accord I made enquiries from Sh. Subhash Kapoof and Dr. S. R. Madan, Principal, whether there was any complaint of any kind against the petitioner relating to conduct and discharge of duties since 1973 to 1981 when the present case had been started against him. They could not bring anything to my notice from which it could be gathered that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming during these long years prior to the present proceedings. At this stage, Sh. Bali submitted that the bone of contention started when the petitioner refused to sign the salary register without receiving his salary. For the above recorded reasons, the revision is accepted, the impugned order of the Director dated 5. 9. 1985 is set aside and the proposal of the governing body is rejected. It is ordered that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all benefits and continuity of service. "