The High Court
Case Details
LPA No.2623-2024 (O&M) LPA No.2623 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH (109) Nakul Kundra Nakul Kundr LPA No.2623-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.01.2025 ……Appellant Versus Guru Nanak Dev University and Ors. Guru Nanak Dev University and Ors. ……Respondents s CORAM: LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. LISA GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the Advocate for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondent-GNDU. Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondent *** ALOK JAIN, J. ALOK JAIN 1. impugned order dated 20.08.2024 Present appeal arises out of impugned order dated 20.08.2024 impugned order dated 20.08.2024 of this Court in writ petition No.7070 of passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.7070 of of this Court in writ petition No.7070 of passed by learned Single 2017, vide which vide which petition preferred by has been preferred by petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. Appellant sought quashing of impugned dismissed. Appellant sought - quashing of impugned office order No.7- - 11/OM/7874 dated 20.06.2012 passed by Vice-Chancellor of respondent- 11/OM/7874 dated 20.06.2012 passed by Vic 11/OM/7874 dated 20.06.2012 passed by Vic was whereby service of the appellant who was on probation was whereby service of the appellant University whereby service of the appellant and subsequent confirmation order passed by Syndicate in the terminated and subsequent confirmation order passed by Syndicate in the and subsequent confirmation order passed by Syndicate in the and subsequent confirmation order passed by Syndicate in the meeting dated 25.06.2012. meeting dated 25.06.2012 2. Learned counsel for appellant has reiterated the factual matrix Learned counsel for appellant has reiterated the factual matrix Learned counsel for appellant has reiterated the factual matrix that appellant/ petitioner was appointed on 04.10.2011 to the Post of appellant/petitioner was appointed on 04.10.2011 to the Post of petitioner was appointed on 04.10.2011 to the Post of Manju 2025.02.11 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2623-2024 (O&M) LPA No.2623 -2- mentally Assistant Professor and during period of probation he was mentally Assistant Professor and during period of probation he was Assistant Professor and during period of probation he was harassed at the hand at the hands of respondent No.5, for by assigning various duties, for which, appellant appellant informed Vice-Chancellor of respondent University on Chancellor of respondent-University on various occasions. It is submitted by counsel for appellant various occasions. It is submitted backlash by counsel for appellant that as a backlash recommended for termination of to his complaints, Head of Department recommended for termination of recommended for termination of to his complaints, services of appellant of appellant on 11.06.2012, which was accepted by Vice on 11.06.2012, which was accepted by Vice Chancellor and subsequently, Deputy Registrar Chancellor and subsequently, Deputy Registrar Chancellor and subsequently, Deputy Registrar issued issued issued impugned impugned termination order dated 20.06.2012. termination 3. Aggrieved with the above, appellant preferred statutory appeal Aggrieved with the above, appellant preferred statutory appeal Aggrieved with the above, appellant preferred statutory appeal and also filed bearing CWP No.21212 of 2012, which was also filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.21212 of 2012, which was bearing CWP No.21212 of 2012, which was informed the disposed as premature. Subsequently, the Chancellor informed the disposed as premature. Subsequently, the Chancellor disposed as premature. Subsequently, the Chancellor appellant that statutory appeal filed by appellant did not appellant that within the filed by appellant did not fall within the 2007 and hence, ambit of Statute 33.2 and Statute 42 of GNDU Calendar-2007 and hence, ambit of Statute 33.2 and Statute 42 of GNDU Calend ambit of Statute 33.2 and Statute 42 of GNDU Calend no further action was warranted. Thereafter, appellant filed writ petition, no further action was warranted. Thereafter, appellant filed writ petition, no further action was warranted. Thereafter, appellant filed writ petition, no further action was warranted. Thereafter, appellant filed writ petition, vide which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide which came to be dismissed by learned Single which came to be dismissed by learned Single order dated 20.08.2024, which is assailed in order dated 20.08.2024 which is assailed in the present appeal. 4. pellant submitted that impugned Learned counsel for appellant submitted that impugned pellant submitted that impugned olation is bad in the eyes of law as termination of appellant is in violation is bad in the eyes of law as termination of appellant judgment is bad in the eyes of law as termination of appellant of the provision of Statute. It is further submitted of the provision of Statute. recommendation It is further submitted that recommendation made by the Principal was erroneous on fact and in procedure. T made by the Principal was e, erroneous on fact and in procedure. Therefore, subsequent approval by Vice-Chancellor is also bad as it was the subsequent approval by Vice yndicate Chancellor is also bad as it was the Syndicate which is the competent authority to terminate which is the appellant. to terminate service of the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to ounsel further submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to further submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to ation order and there was no definite him before passing the termination order and there was no definite ation order and there was no definite him before passing the termin Manju 2025.02.11 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2623-2024 (O&M) LPA No.2623 -3- recommendation by Institution concerned wherein recommendation by Institution concerned appellant/petitioner was wherein appellant/petitioner was He further submits that learned Single Judge fell in error and did working. He further submits that learned Single Judge fell in error and did He further submits that learned Single Judge fell in error and did He further submits that learned Single Judge fell in error and did d to the not consider the contention raised by appellant/petitioner with regard to the not consider the contention raised by appellant/petitioner not consider the contention raised by appellant/petitioner fact that alleged advice alleged advice/recommendations made by Head of Department qua made by Head of Department qua performance of appellant/petitioner’s work were not definite in nature performance were not definite in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant at length, we do counsel for appellant at length, however, we do Admittedly, appellant/writ not find any ground to cause interference. Admittedly, appellant/writ not find any ground to cause interference. not find any ground to cause interference. petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor vide order dated 04.10.2011 petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor vide order dated 04.10.2011 petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor vide order dated 04.10.2011 petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor vide order dated 04.10.2011 on probation for a period of 01 year which could be extended upto 03 years. on probation for a period of 01 year which could be extended upto 03 years. on probation for a period of 01 year which could be extended upto 03 years. on probation for a period of 01 year which could be extended upto 03 years. probation, report was sought with regard to Before expiry of 01 year of probation, report was sought with regard to probation, report was sought with regard to Before expiry of 01 year of work and conduct of writ petitioner. Head of the Department where the work and conduct of writ petitioner. Head of the Department where the work and conduct of writ petitioner. Head of the Department where the work and conduct of writ petitioner. Head of the Department where the Principal was working vide communication dated 11.06.2012 opined that Principal was working vide communication dated 11.06.2012 opined that Principal was working vide communication dated 11.06.2012 opined that Principal was working vide communication dated 11.06.2012 opined that work and conduct of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and work and conduct of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and work and conduct of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and work and conduct of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and nuation in service would not be useful for Institution. In this view of continuation in service would not be useful for Institution. In this view of nuation in service would not be useful for Institution. In this view of nuation in service would not be useful for Institution. In this view of Chancellor of the recommendation by Head of Department, Vice-Chancellor of the recommendation by Head of Department, Vice the recommendation by Head of Department, Vice respondent- University passed order dated 19.06.2012 terminating service of University passed order dated 19.06.2012 terminating service of University passed order dated 19.06.2012 terminating service of er the terms and conditions of writ petitioner during period of probation as per the terms and conditions of writ petitioner during period of probation as p writ petitioner during period of probation as p .1, the appointment coupled with Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Vol.1, the appointment coupled with Guru Nanak Dev University Calend the appointment coupled with Guru Nanak Dev University Calend . This order was concededly approved in the meeting of Syndicate on 2007. This order was concededly approved in the meeting of Syndicate on . This order was concededly approved in the meeting of Syndicate on . This order was concededly approved in the meeting of Syndicate on yndicate was the competent authority 25.06.2012. Argument raised that Syndicate was the competent authority yndicate was the competent authority 25.06.2012. but order of termination of termination has been passed by Vice Chancellor and not by has been passed by Vice-Chancellor and not by competent authority i.e. Syndicate, therefore should be set aside, competent authority i.e. devoid , therefore should be set aside, is devoid of any merit. It is a matter of record that of any merit. I the that Syndicate has later ratified the decision of Vice-Chancellor vide letter dated. 04.07.2012 (Annexure P decision of Vice . dated. 04.07.2012 (Annexure P-23). Manju 2025.02.11 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2623-2024 (O&M) LPA No.2623 -4- 6. it is an admitted A perusal of the record demonstrates that it is an admitted A perusal of the record demonstrate position, that , that while on probation, the work and conduct of was the work and conduct of appellant was not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, respondents considering the not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, respondents considering the not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, respondents considering the not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, respondents considering the opinion of Acting Principal Acting Principal (Head of Department) , discharged the appellant (Head of Department), discharged the appellant by terminating his services. Order passed by Vice by terminating his services. Chancellor was ratified rder passed by Vice-Chancellor was ratified by the Syndicate within seven days. A by the Syndicate within seven days. of Argument raised on behalf of appellant that said order is proved to be appellant that said order is because proved to be stigmatic and illegal because experience Institution while terminating his services duly gave him an experience Institution while terminating his services duly gave him Institution while terminating his services duly gave him , is completely devoid of any merit, hence rejected. This fact to certificate, is completely devoid of any merit, hence rejected. This fact to , is completely devoid of any merit, hence rejected. This fact to , is completely devoid of any merit, hence rejected. This fact to the contrary reveals that the order is not stigmatic the contrary reveals that the order is not stigmatic the contrary reveals that the order is not stigmatic 7. here that the purpose of probation It is imperative to record here that the purpose of probation here that the purpose of probation period period has has been been defined defined in in the the judgment judgment of of