(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Dilip Kumar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand. 3

Legal Reasoning

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate For the University : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate For the State : J.C. to G.A. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR By Court: The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of termination dated 13.5.2003 and for a further direction to the respondents for payment of salary including arrears of salary as per revised pay-scale.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in S.K. Bage College, Kolebira, Simdega where he joined on 17.11.1983. The petitioner being one of the senior-most teacher of the college also worked as Incharge Principal/Professor incharge of the college from 16.12.1995 till

20.10.1997. The petitioner was again appointed on 5.8.1999 to work as the Professor Incharge however, he was not allowed to take charge by the secretary of the college. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice dated 12.7.2000 to which he replied on 5.8.2000. On 16.12.2000 a decision was taken by the General Body to suspend the petitioner and on 1.12.2001 a decision was taken not to make any payment to the petitioner in future. The petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2828 of 2002 challenging the order of suspension. The said writ petition was

Decision

disposed of by order dated 27.3.2003 directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner and to conclude the departmental enquiry and pass a final order within one month . By order dated 13.5.2003, the petitioner was dismissed from service. -2-

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 & 6 stating that the S.K. Bage College, Kolebira is not a constituent college and since it is a non- statutory body, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner was never approved by the Ranchi University. He was never given prescribed pay-scale rather he was paid lump-sum amount by the College. Serious allegations have been alleged against the petitioner in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 & 6. The paragraph nos. 10-14 of the said counter-affidavit are extracted below:

10. "That, with regard to the statements made in paragraphs-9, 10, 11 and 12, it is submitted that while he was working as Incharge Principal of the college-in- question, allowed three students who were outsider namely Ritu Kumari Agrawal, Jawahar Choudhary and Abhay Prasad to appear in B.A. (Hons.) Part-1 Examination without taken admission in the college and the said allegation has been proved.

11. That, it is further stated that the writ petitioner was proceeded on medical leave with effect from 20.10.1997 and the Governing Body of the college-in-question on 22.08.1999 decided to make appointment. Senior most lecturer namely Harun Beck was Incharge Principal of the college-in-question and later on Mr. Beck was appointed permanently as Principal by the Bihar College Services Board, Patna.

12. That, the writ petitioner after return from medical leave on 05.08.1999, submitted his joining report before University Representative and not before the Secretary of the Governing Body. This action of the writ petitioner was only with a view to terrorise the college.

13. That, other allegation against the petitioner was that the writ petitioner treating himself as an organizer of the college-in-question, called a meeting on 15.04.1999 at 04.00 p.m. In the Forest Guest House, Simdega and directed illegally to the Incharge Principal and other members of the Governing Body to participate in the meeting.

14. That, it further stated that while the writ petitioner was acting as Incharge Principal demanded and accepted Rs. 5,000/- from Anupama Kumari as donation for giving appointment letter as lecturer but the same amount has never been entered in any Account Register of the college-in-question and in fact the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- was taken by the writ petitioner as illegal gratification. In support thereof Anupama Kumari has given her written statement." -3-

4. It has further been stated that the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend his case and the enquiry officer posted the matter on 24.8.2002, 10.12.2002, 24.2.2003,

26.02.2003, 07.3.2003 and 21.3.2003 however, the petitioner did not come forward to defend his case and ultimately the enquiry report was submitted on 10.04.2003.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the University has not approved the order of dismissal of service of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be made operative. He has further submitted that the second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner after the due date. The impugned order of dismissal dated 13.5.2003 is a non-speaking order and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

7. As against the above, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in spite of several opportunities provided to the petitioner, the petitioner never appeared before the enquiry officer and therefore an ex-parte report was submitted. There are serious charges of corruption and mismanagement levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to reply those charges and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. On a perusal of documents on record, I find that during the course of enquiry, enquiry officer adjourned the matter on several occasions however, the petitioner did not respond and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the enquiry report. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have narrated the various acts and omissions of corruption and mismanagement by the petitioner. It further appears from the impugned order dated 13.5.2003 that after considering the enquiry report and the reply of the petitioner to the second show-cause notice, the order of dismissal from service has been passed. I find no substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated

13.5.2003 is a non-speaking order.

9. In “Tara Chand Khatri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others”, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 472, a similar contention has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: -4-

19. “In the instant case, the incorrectness of the first limb of the contention is apparent from a bare reading of the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on May 20, 1969 which clearly states that he agrees with the findings of the enquiring officer. Reading the order as a whole, it becomes crystal clear that the disciplinary authority held the charge drawn up against the appellant as proved.”

10. In so far as the contention that the order of dismissal from service has not been approved by the University is concerned, I find that as the appointment of the petitioner was never approved by the University, there is no requirement in law that the order of dismissal from service should be approved by the University before it becomes operative.

11. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 28/6/ 2013 Satyarthi/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)