PESHKAR SINGH Vs. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the impugned order of termination dated 12.10.1994 inflicted by way of removing the petitioner from service at the age of 49 years by invoking Clause 12 (ix) of Chapter IX of the Statutes of the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar from the range of penalties enumerated therein but without disqualifying him for future service. The petitioner's statutory appeal against the order of termination was dismissed on 04.05.1995. The mercy appeal to the Board of Management of the University despite the Committee's recommendation to the contrary requesting for a review of the removal was declined. The petitioner alleges serious personal bias and mala fides in the acts of the authorities against the petitioner arrayed as parties by name and especially the then respondent -Vice Chancellor of the respondent University who made it a mission to show him the exit door by abusing his authority.

(2.) The petitioner's service profile in the University is like this. He was appointed Sectional Officer (Horticulture) in 1971 possessing the essential degree of M.Sc. Horticulture with specialization in Floriculture. Petitioner was promoted as Landscape Officer Grade-B in November 1982 and thereafter as landscape Officer Grade-A in Sept 1990. The trouble began for the petitioner in 1993, when one Dr. S.S.Bisla had given testimony in a criminal complaint of defamation against the Vice Chancellor respondent No.2 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. On the same day, Dr. S.S.Bisla was beaten up in the University campus by one Dr.O.P.Toki - respondent No.3 and petitioner happened to be passing by and became unwittingly a witness to the incident, as he rescued him like many others nearby. He was an eye witness against respondent No.3 Toki who had belaboured Dr. S.S. Bisla on instigation of the Vice Chancellor respondent No.2. Thereafter, Dr.S.S. Bisla filed a criminal complaint against respondent No.3 in which the petitioner was cited as a witness by Dr. Bisla, to get recorded his statement. In the departmental enquiry initiated against Dr.S.S.Bisla, the petitioner was also cited as a defence witness by Dr. Bisla. This annoyed the Vice Chancellor respondent No.2. On 03.01.1994, the petitioner was temporarily transferred to Nilokheri although there was no post available there and was made to sit under the control of a junior officer. He obeyed the order. The Vice Chancellor got after him and set his machinery to foist a case of misconduct against the petitioner and find reasons for instituting a departmental enquiry with a view to end his employment anyhow.

(3.) Ultimately, the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide memo dated 25.01.1994 for drawing contingent bills as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and handing over vouchers to the Inspecting Officer to escape scrutiny; making petty purchases and allowing petty payments exceeding ceiling of Rs 3000/- laid down in CAU's letter dated 21.7.1989; exceeding budgetary allocation for the year 1992-93 trying to discharge the liabilities of the year 1992-93 against the budget allocation for the next financial year; and other sundry expenses involving repair of equipment, diesel engines/pumps spares for tractors; getting tractors repaired many times during the year 1992-93; making piece-meal purchases, non-production of record; incurring liabilities over and above the budget provision for the same year to avoid financial sanction of higher competent authorities; financial irregularities with a view to take undue pecuniary advantage for which his conduct was put to notice and reply, if he had anything to say. In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 07.02.1994 explaining that all the charges are false and baseless. Respondent No.4 was appointed as enquiry officer. Still dissatisfied, another charge-sheet was slapped on the petitioner on 04.02.1994 even before the first reply was put in. In the second charge-sheet, many of the allegations are a repetition of the old allegations leveled in the earlier charge-sheet, but there is no allegation of any embezzlement or forgery of record.