LAWS(P&H)-1989-5-159

HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISSAR Vs. J S NARESH

Decided On May 18, 1989
HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISSAR Appellant
V/S
J S NARESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, Hissar restraining the petitioner from implementing the order dated 26.12.1986 terminating the services of respondent Dr. J.S. Naresh.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is an Entomologist and was posted in Haryana Agricultural University upto the month of April, 1984 when he was transferred to the Regional Research Centre of the said University at Bawal. On account of his transfer some amount was claimed by him as transfer T.A. which on enquiry was found to be a false claim. Thus, the services of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 26.12.1986 which order was challenged in the suit with a further interim prayer of staying the operation of the said order as the same was not still implemented. The trial Court first granted the stay and then vacated it. The respondent challenged the order of the trial Court. In the appeal which was allowed and the University authorities were restrained from implementing the said order.

(3.) The undisputed facts noted by the lower appellate Court are that the order of termination was passed on 26.12.1986 and on 29.12.1986, the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar, restrained the defendants-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) from implementing the same. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the order dated 26.12.1986, had been implemented, therefore, no injunction could have been granted. Prima facie, it has come on record that order dated 26.12.1986 was sent under registered post to the respondent by the petitioner, on 29.12.1986 which was received by him on 30.12.1986. Copy of the same is alleged to have been despatched to Director, Regional Research Centre, Bawal on 30.12.1986 though some attempt to change digit '3' into '2' appears to have been made to frustrate the said order issued by the trial Court.