PAWAN KUMAR JAGDISH RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service on his appointment as Lab. Assistant on 30.7.1980 in Hindu Girls College, Sonepat, which is being managed by respondent No. 2. He was confirmed in service in the year 1983. On October 8, 1990, the petitioner was suspended. This was followed by a charge-sheet dated 28.12.1990, which was issued by the principal of the College on the basis of decision taken by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 1.12.1990. On 11.1.1991, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure R-2) before the Principal expressing regret for his conduct and requested that he may be pardoned. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 23.3.1991. The Governing Body took notice of the reply filed by the petitioner and the view that the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him. It decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. With a view to comply with the principles of natural justice, the Governing Body decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in its next meeting. On 4.4.1991, the Principal of the College issued notice (Annexure P-2) and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply in regard to the proposal of the Governing body and to express his desire as to whether he wanted to be heard personally. The petitioner expressed his desire to be heard in person. According to him that opportunity of hearing was not given by the Governing Body but he was made to appear before the Chairman of the Governing Body, who transmitted his case to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, for approval of the proposal of Managing Committee to terminate his service. The petitioner submitted representation dated 29.7.1991 (Annexure P-4) to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and prayed that the recommendation made by the Governing Body be quashed, he be exonerated of the charges and the matter be dropped. The Director, Higher Education, gave his approval to the proposal of the Governing Body regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner. On the basis of this approval, the Governing Body of the College passed resolution dated 20.11.1991 and terminated his service w.e.f. 8.10.1990. Against the approval accorded by the Director, the petitioner filed a revision petition. That too has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Haryana, Department of Education, vide his order dated 22.4.1992 (Annexure P-9).

(2.) Petitioner has challenged the legality of the action taken by respondent No. 2 terminating his service, the approval accorded by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana and the dismissal of his revision petition by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department. His case is that the proceedings were held against him in violation of the provisions contained in the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979(for short, 'the Act') and the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules of 1980'). Petitioner has pleaded that the procedure prescribed in Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1980 has not been followed by the respondents before passing the order of termination of his service and that the revising authority has not passed a speaking order.

(3.) In its written statement, respondent No. 2 has stated that the management of the college had received a complaint (Annexure R-1) from one Maha Singh Sharma alleging that the petitioner, who was in drunken state on 7.10.1990, had misbehaved with him when the complainant had visited the college to enquire as to when the college will re-open. The petitioner was immediately sent for medical examination and he was found to be under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.10.1990. Thereafter, the Governing Body decided to charge-sheet the petitioner. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner made a statement in writing admitting the allegations. The Governing Body considered the entire matter and resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the gravity of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner's service be terminated. Nevertheless the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing. He appeared before the President of the College and prayed that a lenient view be taken. The matter was considered by the President of the College and he directed that the proposal for termination of the petitioner's service under Section 7 of the Act be sent. Representation made by the petitioner against that proposal was considered by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, who approved the proposal. Thereafter, a decision was taken in the meeting of the Governing Body held on 20.11.1991 to terminate the petitioner's service and that decision was conveyed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is commensurate with the allegation of misconduct found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.