THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT APPEAL No.508 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
30.06.2021 passed in W.P.No.25056 of 2019 by the learned
Single Judge.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent/employee has preferred a writ petition before the
learned Single Judge challenging the order of termination dated 11.07.2019 inflicting punishment of removal from service.
The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of D.K.Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Limited1 solely on the ground that a stigmatic order has been passed without granting any opportunity to the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/University has argued before this Court that an order was passed on 11.07.2019 removing the respondent/employee from service keeping in view the FIR registered against him for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 506, 354D of the IPC, Section 11 read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of IT Act. The order of removal, which is on record, reflects that 1 1993 (3) SCC 259 2 one Dr. Ravi Varala, Head of the Department of Chemistry, demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- from four students, who are having backlogs, and there were other allegations also against Dr. Ravi Varala. The respondent/employee was also made an accused in the criminal case and in those circumstances the order of removal was passed.
The undisputed facts reveal that no show cause notice of any kind was issued to the respondent/employee and the stand of the learned counsel for the University is that because he is a contractual employee, there was no necessity for issuing any show cause notice.
Learned counsel for the University has not been able to point out from the terms and engagement of the respondent/employee any clause which empowers the University to terminate a temporary employee on account of misconduct without issuing any show cause notice or without holding any enquiry.
Undisputedly, in the present case, the order passed by the University is a stigmatic order and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition keeping in view the judgment delivered in D.K.Yadav (supra). This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the admission is declined. However, liberty is granted to the appellants/University to take appropriate action in accordance with law in respect of the respondent/employee. 3 The learned Single Judge has also directed reinstatement of the respondent/employee with all consequential benefits. In the considered opinion of this Court and keeping in view the allegations, the University shall be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law in respect of the respondent/employee and after the subsequent action of the University is finalized, the University shall be free to pass appropriate order in respect of the consequential benefits. The respondent/employee shall be entitled for reinstatement.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ P. MADHAVI DEVI, J 02.11.2021 ES