RAKESH KUMAR Vs. GRAMOTHAN VIDYAPEETH SIKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the writ petition, the petitioner Rakesh Kumar, who was a member of the respondent Gramothan Vidyapeeth Shiksha Mahavidyalya, has challenged the orders Annx. 7, 8 and 9, by which penalties have been inflicted upon him. It may be mentioned that on 5 -8 -1984 a charge -sheet, Annx. 3 was served upon the petitioner, in which inter alia it was alleged that the petitioner had charged an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ -, and Rs. 2000/ -respectively from Shri Ujjagar Singh and Nachhater Singh at the time of their admission to the B Ed. classes in July 1983, while the petitioner was officiating as the Principal of the College. The petitioner filed his reply to this charge -sheet on 13 -8 -1984, a copy of which has been filed as Annx. 4. He denied the charges and attributed malafide to the authority, namely, the Administrator of the respondent Gramothan Vidyapeeth. Thereafter, on 8 4 -1985, again a communication was sent to the petitioner, charging him with absence from duty without leave and his habitual absence and carelessness Copy of this letter is Annx. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply to it vide Annx. 6, denying the charge and stating that he had already applied for grant of leave on account of illness and had also submitted a Medical Certificate, in support of the same.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that after this he did not hear from the authorities for quite some time and later he received a copy of a letter addressed by the Manager to the Principal of respondent No. 1 dated 14/16 -7 -1985 and further two other communications addressed to the petitioner both dated 318 -7 -1985. The copies of three documents have been filed as Annxs. 7, 8 and 9 respectively. By Annx 7, the Manager had informed the President of the respondent No. 1 that after enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found proved and he had been found guilty of the charges of receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 2.500/ -respectively from Ujjager Singh and Nachhater Singh at the time admission was given to them in B.Ed. Class and the Principal was further directed that Rs. 3,500/ - may be deducted from the salary of the petitioner and be paid over to the aforesaid two students. By Ex. 6, the petitioner was informed that he had been found guilty of the aforesaid charge on the enquiry made in that respect and as a consequence, the penalty of with helding of one increment permanently (for the year 1984 85)had been imposed upon and he was warned not to commit such improper acts in future. By Annx. 9 the petitioner was informed that it was found that he had absented himself from the College without leave on 4 -4 1985, 5 -41985 and 6 -4 -1985 and he had failed to give any satisfactory reply to the notice asking him to explain the action and, therefore, the absence was being treated as a break in the service and his next increment was deferred by 3 days He was also warned not to act in such careless manner in future.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has contested the writ petition by filing a reply. Preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the respondent No. 1 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ petition against it is not maintainable. It is stated in this connection that the respondent No. 1 has not received any grant in aid from the State nor any Government Officer is on the Managing Body of the University and the Government has no control over it. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 is not affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. Only a college run by the Society is affiliated to the University and such affiliation will not make the Society a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.