Allowed

Raj Kumar Singh v. Institute of Engineering and Technology Bundelkhand University Jhansi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2020WRIA/7187/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a contract Assistant Professor, challenged his disengagement by Board of Governors for alleged unauthorized leave. Court held misconduct did not warrant termination, set aside the impugned orders absolving renewal of contract from automatic bar.

What did the court decide?

Resolution of Board of Governor dated 16.06.2020 and consequential order dated 23.06.2020 set aside

Raj Kumar Singh Vs Institute of Engineering… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7187 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh Respondent :- Institute Of Engineering And Technology Bundelkhand University Jhansi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Prakash Chandra Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Prakash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶6

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the resolution of the Board of Governor dated 16th June, 2020 as well as the consequential office order dated 23rd June, 2020.

¶7

The facts of the case in narrow compass can be drawn like this that the petitioner was appointed in the institution namely Department of Electronics and Instrumentation University of Bundelkhand, Jhansi on a contract basis as Assistant Professor for a period of two years which is coming to an end on 30th September, 2020.

¶8

Controversy in the present case has arisen on account of the fact that the petitioner had to attend the training programme so he moved an application for leave on 5th January, 2020 then on 5th February, 2020 and then again on 25th February, 2020 through the Project Coordinator. The petitioner submitted leave application on the assurance of the Project Coordinator that his leave would get sanctioned and there will be no trouble. The Head of Department had also consented for leave. However, when the petitioner returned from training he got served with a show cause notice dated 17th March, 2020 asking him to give his explanation for unauthorised absence from institution between 2nd March, 2020 and 14th March, 2020. On 19th March, 2020 the petitioner submitted a detailed reply and absolutely denied the allegations of unauthorised leave. He defended that the leave application was properly moved through the Project Coordinator and was sanctioned by Head of Department. It appears that while matter was still seized with the other concerned respondent, the petitioner approached the

¶9

respondent No.3 for ventilation of his grievance regarding deduction of salary and non-payment of TA & DA and other grievances and the respondent No.3 took notice of the complaint and directed respondent No.4 to constitute a three member Enquiry Committee on 5th April, 2020. The petitioner was directed to participate in the inquiry and put up his defence also but the petitioner's defence was disbelieved. The inquiry report was submitted on 9th May, 2020 and was placed before the Project Coordinator. The petitioner was asked by the Project Coordinator to give his reply to the Inquiry Committee's report vide letter dated 10th June, 2020 which the petitioner immediately replied vide letter dated 12th June, 2020. However, in the meanwhile, Board of Governors held meeting on 16th June, 2020 and decided to disengage the services of the petitioner with immediate effect considering the report of the three member Committee and so also consequential order has been passed on 23rd June, 2020.

¶10

The petitioner has raised his grievance that neither the reply of the petitioner was considered by the Board of Governor in the meeting in its correct perspective nor, the inquiry report which was submitted to the Inquiry Committee on account of letter written by the petitioner was taken into account in its correct perspective. He submitted that Board of Governor has virtually proceeded to pass orders to dispense with the services of the petitioner noting the incident of going on leave without their being any sanction but his reply given to the show cause notice was not even dealt with, except noting the fact that he submitted reply. The report of the Inquiry Committee which has been referred to in the meeting of the Board of Governors does not deal with the reply of the petitioner of the show cause given to the Project Coordinator on 12th June, 2020. Even the findings of the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee have not been dealt with by the Board of Governors. It is argued that in any administrative decision making process where the aggrieved party is ultimately going to be prejudiced by decision to be taken and which can stigmatic, it is imperative to deal with reply of the delinquent employee. He submits that all the relevant materials are required to be dealt with by the authority before arriving at definite conclusion.

¶11

Yet another argument is raised that initially instituted enquiry persuant to show cause notice dated 17th March, 2020 has remained inconclusive till date and action has been taken against the petitioner citing his letter by mail to the respondent No.3 as a misconduct for the findings arrived by three member Committee.

¶12

The findings and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

¶13

headed by Professor Ramapati Mishra, Director, IET RML Awadh University, Faizabad, is reproduced hereunder:-

¶14

"Findings and recommendation of Committee

¶15

AA. With the above evidence all members of committee found that action of director is not due to casteism but due to necessity of manpower for exam duties.

¶16

BB. Second point, the committee unanimously found that due to miscommunication disobedience has been done by Er. Rajkumar Singh. NIIU letter to him, gave a sense that it's necessary to undergo the course So he has performed the duties at IIT Gowahati therefore committee recommends that his wages/ salary may be paid if Er. Rajkumar writes an apology letter and promises not to leave institute without Director approval in future"

¶17

From the perusal of the Inquiry Committee's recommendations, it is quite clear that there was no charge upon the petitioner regarding his work. It has also not been disputed that he had moved proper application for sanction of the leave and that it was made through proper channel.

¶18

A pointed query was made to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether, the work and conduct of the petitioner otherwise can be questioned, learned counsel for the respondents could not give any instance which can be taken to question the work and conduct of the petitioner in the institution. It would have been altogether a different thing had there been no application ever moved by the petitioner seeking leave to proceed for training. The training programme for which the petitioner had already stood selected, was also not doubted. It is also not a case of the respondent that by such conduct the petitioner caused any loss to the institution or in the conduct of examination for which he has been held to be guilty for disobedience.

¶19

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is for this order under challenge and decision of the Board of Governors, the petitioners' claim would not be considered for renewal of contract appointment.

¶20

Considering special facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that this is not a case of such a misconduct or disobedience which can warrant the maximum punishment of termination of service and, accordingly, the resolution of the Board of Governor dated 16th June, 2020 and consequential order dated 23rd June, 2020 are hereby set aside.

¶21

However, this judgment is limited to the controversy in issue and will have no reflection upon the period of appointment

¶22

under the contract/ agreement reached between the petitioner and respondents and this judgment shall also not be taken as a binding precedent.

¶23

It is further made clear that it will be within the discretion of the respondents to grant the renewal to contract appointment of the petitioner and no orders are being passed on that count.

¶24

The writ petition thus, stands allowed in terms of what has been observed and directed hereinabove.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.9.2020 Atmesh

¶26

Digitally signed by AJIT KUMAR Date: 2020.09.30 20:05:41 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar Singh v. Institute of Engineering and Technology Bundelkhand University Jhansi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh v. Institute of Engineering and Technology Bundelkhand University Jhansi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azhar Sultan Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Momin Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Shivmurat Bhimrav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Smt.Gyanmati Vs District Basic Siksha Adhikari Basti and 3 Others