Dismissed

Sanstosh Kumari and Ors. v. Punjabi Universituy, Patiala and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Aug 2012CWP/11556/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reviewed a writ petition challenging appointments made by the former Vice Chancellor. Upon receiving the University's affidavit, prosecution report, and Government replies, the Court found the inquiry report ill-founded and the appointments properly regularized. Consequently, no further direction was issued, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as no further direction was required; the University was required to complete necessary actions within the indicated time schedule.

Sanstosh Kumari and Ors. Vs Punjabi… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No. 11556 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision : 14.8.2012

¶6

Santosh Kumari and others .......Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Punjabi University, Patiala and another .......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶10

Present:Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab Mr. Sidharth Gupta, Advocate Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Simerjit Singh Beniwal, Advocate, for Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, for respondent No.4

¶11

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

¶12

CMs No. 10757-58 of 2012

¶13

Allowed as prayed for. Reply to the enquiry report dated 16.11.2007 is taken on record.

¶14

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶15

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents-Punjabi University, Patiala and its Vice Chancellor to review all the selections and appointments of Class III and Class IV (non-teaching posts) made by Sh. S.S. Boparai, former Vice Chancellor of the University, from August 2002 to November 2007. It was

¶16

-2-

¶17

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶18

case of the petitioners that appointments have been made without any authority and justification and with malafide intention.

¶19

In response to notice issued, replies were filed. In between, at the time of hearing, it transpired that a vigilance enquiry was conducted against the former Vice Chancellor Sh. S.S.Boparai. To know the findings of the enquiry, directions were issued to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, who placed on record the Status report on 8.11.2011 by way of an affidavit of Shiv Kumar Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. regarding investigation conducted against former Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala.

¶20

Taking note of the findings given in that report, Sh. S.S. Boparai, former Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala, was arrayed as one of the respondents along with Dr. Jaspal Singh, Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala and on going through the affidavits filed from time to time, this Court raised queries in its order dated 28.2.2012 which were to the following effect :-

¶21

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.

¶22

At this stage, we call upon the respondent- Punjabi University, Patiala to lay the following information before the Court :-

¶23

i) The number of contractual and adhoc employees appointed without selection who have also been appointed in the process of regular appointment initiated through advertisement(s) issued. This is in respect of both teaching and non-teaching staff appointed during the tenure of Shri S.S. Boparai, former Vice Chancellor and the present Vice Chancellor Dr. Jaspal Singh.

¶24

ii)The stage/stages at which the advertisement process in respect of other posts (115+76 in number as indicated

¶25

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶26

-3-

¶27

in the chart placed before the Court on behalf of the University) is presently poised.

¶28

iii)What would be the time taken by the University to fill up on regular basis the remaining posts, both teaching and non-teaching currently now held on adhoc and temporary basis keeping in mind that in any organisation or University some posts would always fill up on adhoc/temporary basis.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are also of the view that the State of Punjab represented by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education be impleaded as a respondent to the present proceedings.

¶30

It has been submitted on behalf of the State of Punjab that the decision reflected in the communication dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure R-2) with regard to the criminal liability of Shri Boparai appears to be the tentative view of the administrative department and not that of the competent authority of the State Government. The State of Punjab to dilate on the aforesaid aspect of the matter and if the said decision is not the final decision of the competent authorities, to take the necessary final decision within two weeks and place the same before the Court.

¶31

The State of Punjab will also inform the Court on the next date fixed the time schedule for release of grants to the University so as to enable the University to go ahead with the recruitment process on regular basis as indicated in the earlier part of this order.”

¶32

In response to the aforesaid order, a Status report was filed by

¶33

the Vigilance Bureau, Patiala wherein it is stated that the State Government has decided not to initiate any action against Sh. S.S. Boparai for the alleged mal-practices committed by him.

¶34

The State of Punjab also filed response to the order mentioned above. On due consideration of the replies filed by the Vigilance Bureau and State of Punjab, on 29.3.2012 following order was passed by this Court :-

¶35

“By our order dated 28.02.2012, we had called upon the respondent Punjabi University, Patiala to lay before us the following information:(i) The number of contractual and adhoc

¶36

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶37

-4-

¶38

employees appointed without any selection who have since been regularized on the basis of advertisement(s) issued and selection(s) held.

¶39

(ii) The present stage/stages of the process of advertisement and selection in respect of 115 + 76 posts (both teaching and non-teaching) currently held on adhoc/contract basis.

¶40

(iii) What would be the time taken by the University to fill up, on regular basis, i.e. by issuing advertisement and holding selections the remaining posts currently held by the incumbents on adhoc/contract basis?

¶41

In response, an affidavit dated 23.03.2012 has been filed laying before the Court the information sought for. The said information would indicate that 107 posts filled up during the tenure of Shri S.S. Boparai, the then Vice Chancellor and 124 posts filled up during the tenure of the present Vice Chancellor without any advertisement/selection have since been filled up in a regular manner. Query No. 1 contained in the Court's order dated 28.02.2012 stands answered in the above manner.

¶42

In so far as query No. 2 is concerned, the University has stated that out of 115 posts filled up during the tenure of Shri Boparai without advertisement and selection, 59 persons had been selected through advertisement and for the remaining 56 posts the process of verification of the candidates' eligibility etc. is going on. Similarly, in respect of 76 posts filled up during the tenure of the present Vice Chancellor, 48 posts have been filled up through advertisement and the remaining 28 posts are undergoing the said process which presently is one of verification of eligibility etc.

¶43

In so far as the third query is concerned, the University has stated that a total number of 178 posts filled up during the tenure of Shri Boparai are currently being held on adhoc/contract basis whereas 221 posts filled up during the tenure of the present Vice Chancellor are being held on the same basis. A time schedule has been enclosed to the affidavit and marked as Annexure A which, according to the University, would be followed in filling up the aforesaid posts on regular basis.

¶44

The affidavit dated 23.03.2012 filed before the Court by the University and the information laid before us, in our considered view, satisfactorily answers the three queries raised by the Court in its order dated 28.02.2012. Nothing, therefore, would survive for consideration on the aforesaid aspect of the case save and

¶45

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶46

-5-

¶47

except that the University will now proceed to complete the necessary action that is required to be taken within such time schedule as has been indicated in the document enclosed as Annexure A.

¶48

Notwithstanding such earlier orders as may have been passed by the Court we now permit the Punjabi University, Patiala to extend the tenure of adhoc/contract appointments, wherever necessary, until the regular selection and appointment in the different cadres/posts in the University is made in accordance with the time schedule mentioned in Annexure A to the affidavit dated 23.03.2012.

¶49

In our order dated 28.02.2012, we had also required the State of Punjab to inform us with regard to the time schedule of release of grants to the University so as to enable the University to go ahead with the recruitment process on regular basis. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions received states that a sum of Rs. 11,14,66,000/- has been sanctioned in favour of the University as per its budgetary entitlement on 22.02.2012 and the requisite bank draft has been prepared which will be received by the University shortly.

¶50

In view of the above, the query made by the Court with regard to release of grants to the University also stands adequately answered.

¶51

This will bring the Court to the last limb of the issues arising, namely, the criminal liability of Shri Boparai the then Vice Chancellor. In this regard, we have perused the relevant records laid before us in original by the learned Additional Advocate General and we have also considered the report of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau dated 16.11.2007; the letter of the Additional Secretary, Vigilance Department to the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau dated 12.03.2010 as well as the notings in the file laying the matter before the Governor of Punjab.

¶52

We are told by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Administrative Department i.e. Department of Higher Education had approved the views of the Additional Secretary, Vigilance in the letter dated 12.03.2010 with regard to dropping of the proceedings of the vigilance inquiry against Shri Boparai on the ground that no criminal liability can be fastened on the said person. We are also told that the said decision of the Administrative Department has since been approved by the Education Minister as well as the Chief Minister of the

¶53

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶54

-6-

¶55

State and that is how the matter has been put up before the Governor of Punjab who is also the Chancellor of the University.

¶56

While no fetters can be put on the power and jurisdiction of the different constitutional authorities to decide the matter, we wish to make it clear that as the Court is in sesin of the same matter, namely, the criminal liability of Shri Boparai, any decision of any authority in the matter will not come in the way of the Court in passing such orders as may be considered fit and appropriate.

¶57

Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that before making further submissions on the aforesaid issue i.e. criminal liability of Shri Boparai, he would like to scan the records which have been placed before him only yesterday. The learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, has prayed for some time to enable him to peruse the relevant records. On due consideration, we grant time upto 16.04.2012 to the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab.”

¶58

Perusal of aforesaid order shows that the Court had recorded

¶59

its satisfaction qua the answers given to the queries raised in its order dated 28.2.2012 and so far as impugned appointments were concerned, the Court came to the conclusion that nothing survived for consideration in view of directions issued by this Court earlier regarding appointments to be made in the Punjabi University, Patiala by following the proper procedure. To determine the criminal liability of Sh. S.S. Boparai, former Vice Chancellor, the requisite record, on the basis of which vigilance enquiry was conducted, was ordered to be brought before the Court. On perusal of the record it was noticed that the Administrative Department had formed a view to drop the proceedings for criminal liability to be initiated against Sh. S.S. Boparai in terms of the enquiry report dated 16.11.2007. The view formed by the Administrative Department had been

¶60

-7-

¶61

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶62

approved by the Chief Minister and the matter was sent to the Governor for approval. To satisfy itself further, this Court also directed Sh. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab to scan the record, on the basis of which vigilance enquiry was conducted. On 17.4.2012 the Registrar of the Punjabi University, Patiala was directed to place on record stand of the University regarding charges levelled against Sh. S.S. Boparai, former Vice Chancellor in the Vigilance Enquiry report dated 16.11.2007. In response thereto an affidavit of Sh. A.S. Chawla, Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala was placed on record wherein it was stated that the said Vice Chancellor was not at fault. It was further stated that Vigilance Enquiry report dated 16.11.2007 submitted by the Vigilance Bureau, Patiala was prepared without reference to record of the University. Sh. S.S. Boparai filed his response to the allegations levelled against him, refuting all the allegations levelled against him stating that the Enquiry report which was prepared on 16.11.2007 was without any basis because the University record was not taken into consideration and no reference was made to the rules of the University. To deny the charge of embezzlement committed, it was stated that reliance was placed upon only two affidavits dated 29.8.2007 and 31.8.2007 executed by Gurdev Singh son of Angrej Singh and Kewal Krishan son of Chiranji Lal respectively by the Vigilance Bureau but in those affidavits there was no mention that any amount was handed over to Sh. S.S. Boparai and there was also no mention as to how much amount was donated by them to the University for construction of the Building at Rampura phul.

¶63

At the time of hearing, we have also gone through the record

¶64

-8-

¶65

CWP No. 11556 of 2009

¶66

of the Vigilance Bureau and found that the allegations levelled against Sh. S.S. Boparai in the enquiry report, are ill founded. All the action taken by Sh. S.S. Boparai appears to have been taken as per norms and approved by the Syndicate. Regarding embezzlement of funds, there is nothing on record to show that any such embezzlement was committed by Sh. S.S. Boparai, former Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala. So far as allegations levelled against Sh. S.S. Boparai by Deepak Jindal are concerned, it has come on record that he was a contractor and was blacklisted by Sh. S.S. Boparai, former Vice Chancellor. It appears that out of frustration, he may have given a false affidavit.

¶67

In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of as no further direction is required to be issued in this case. We are compelled to say that in future, if any enquiry is conducted in such like manner, reference be made to the documents on record of the institution and an opportunity be also given to the person concerned to explain his position.

¶68

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶69

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶70

14.8.2012 Ashwani

Sanstosh Kumari and Ors. v. Punjabi Universituy, Patiala and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanstosh Kumari and Ors. v. Punjabi Universituy, Patiala and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Liyakat and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narinder Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurmit Kaur Vs Kamlesh Rani

Rajeshwar Kumar Vashisht and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab