SAT PAL Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this writ petition has sought the quashing of order Annexure P-5 dated 29th July, 1986 passed by the second Respondent dispensing with the services of the Petitioner.

(2.) It is the Petitioner's case that he was engaged as a daily waged electric helper in the Construction Division of Respondent No. 1. University on 4th May, 1976. After putting in about 2-1/2 years service, he was brought on work charged establishment through an order Annexure P-l passed on 4th December, 1978 by Respondent No. 2. Till passing of the impugned order, he had completed about eight years of service on the work charged establishment of Respondent No. 1. University, during which period his work and conduct had been satisfactory, but due to his trade union activities, the Respondents have victimised him. It is alleged by him that he was active worker of the Himachal Pradesh University Class IV and Technical Workers Union affiliated to Northern India Colleges and Universities Employees Federation. On 31st October, 1985, he was elected as its Assistant Finance Secretary and since then had been in the forefront of all the activities of the Union.

(3.) In or about second week of July, 1986, certain appointments/ promotions were made on a regular establishment out of the workers on work-charged establishment for which workers of electricity wing were not considered. As a result of this, there was unrest amongst the workers of the Construction Division. On 21st July, 1986, the Petitioner alongwith other office bearers and workers of the Union met Respondent No. 2 and on his suggestion approached the Registrar in his office. Instead of patiently listening to their grievances, the Registrar rebuked them and refused to have a talk. The workers of the Construction Division became agitated, raised slogans and sat on Dharna outside the office of the Registrar. The office bearers thereafter met the Vice-Chancellor and on his assurance, Dharna was removed. It is further alleged that on 23rd July, 1986, memorandum Annexure P-3 was served upon him and he was asked to explain his position within three days, failing which disciplinary action was threatened for misconduct. The explanation sought for was that on 21st July, 1986, the Petitioner had neglected official duties as Beldar by remaining absent and instead he led an unruly gathering of labour in the University, which created an objectionable situation. To this, the Petitioner sent his reply Annexure P-4 on 25th July, 1986 controverting the charge of misconduct and indiscipline. The Registrar of the University thereafter, as is alleged, got the Petitioner's services terminated, for which Respondent No. 2 on 29th July, 1986 issued an order Annexure P-5. It is this order, which is under challenge.