ASHOK BHATIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the orders Annexures P-19 dated 25.2.1989 read with Annexure P-18 dated 14.2.1989 and Annexure P-20 dated 28.12.1990 and has prayed that these orders be quashed with a direction to the respondents to re-instate him in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) In order to appreciate the multi-fold contentions advanced by Shri Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is appropriate to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. The petitioner had joined service of Swami Premanand Mahavidyaiaya, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, in the year 1974 as Lecturer in Commerce. On the basis of a complaint made by Shri Rajinder Singh, father of Ms. Amarjit Kaur, who was a student of the College, that the petitioner had connived with his daughter who ran away from her house, the Managing Committee of the College took a decision to suspend the petitioner and also serve him with a charge-sheet. This decision of the Managing Committee was given effect to by the Secretary vide Memo Annexure P-1 dated 3.6.1985. The-petitioner sought certain documents i.e. Minutes book of the emergent meeting of the Managing Committee held on 27.5.1985 and other relevant documents which the Managing Committee declined to supply him. Thereafter, he filed a reply to the charge-sheet. The Managing Committee felt that the reply filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, it constituted a committee of three persons, who were members of the Managing Committee, for holding a regular inquiry against the petitioner. First meeting of the inquiry committee took place on 26.8.1985 with due notice to the petitioner, who did not appear before the inquiry committee. The second meeting was held on 15.11.1985. On that day the petitioner appeared. His reply was taken into consideration by the inquiry committee and the hearing was adjourned to 18.11.1985 with due intimation to the petitioner. On 18.11.1985, the petitioner did not appear before the inquiry committee. Instead he sent a telegram to the inquiry committee with a request to adjourn the hearing because he was to go to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The inquiry committee found that the cause given by the petitioner for adjournment of the inquiry proceedings was untenable and, therefore, it decided to proceed ex parte. Hearing of the inquiry was fixed on 9.12.1985 and an intimation for that date was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.12.1985. Two witnesses were examined on 9.12.1985 and the proceedings were adjourned to 17.12.1985. On 18.12.1985, the inquiry committee submitted its report with a finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner stand proved. The Managing committee considered the inquiry report in its meeting held on 2.2.86 and formed a tentative opinion that the petitioner, who had been found guilty of moral turpitude, does not deserve to be retained in service. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 3.2.1986 was issued to the petitioner. He submitted reply dated 16.3.1986. The Managing Committee once again considered the matter on 18.6.1986 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed resolution to dismiss the petitioner from service and forwarded, this proposal to the Director, Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab. The said authority gave a notice to the petitioner in response to which he filed a representation and after hearing both the sides, the Director, Public Instruction (Colleges) approved the proposal of the Managing Committee vide its order dated 14.2.1989. Immediately thereafter, the Managing Committee passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed against the decision of the Managing Committee because the College Tribunal before whom he had filed appeal did not find any merit in his claim for reinstatement.

(3.) Shri Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of the writ petition:-