Delhi High Court
Binod Kumar Singh vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan And ... on 4 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 04, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3190/2018 & CM No.12625/2018
BINOD KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shibashish Misra and Ms.Bhabna
Das, Advocates
versus
RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Gyan Prakash, Advocate for
respondent No.1
Mr.Vivekanand Mishra, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Vide impugned order of 29th June, 2017 (Annexure P-2),
petitioner's Service Agreement of 11th November, 2013 has been
terminated and petitioner was removed from the post of Registrar of
respondent-Sansthan, which had been challenged by way of an appeal.
Vide order of 4th January, 2018, petitioner's statutory appeal stands
dismissed. After petitioner had worked on the post of Registrar of
respondent-Sansthan for more than two years, departmental proceedings
were initiated against him on account of some complaint received
regarding essential educational qualification of petitioner. The foremost
charge on which petitioner was departmentally proceeded was of his
obtaining 54.66% marks in M.A. (Public Administration) whereas the
eligibility was 55% in the said Discipline.
2. After having heard learned counsel for petitioner at length, this
Court is of the opinion that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
petitioner on the issue of petitioner lacking essential educational
qualification was not justified. Although respondent-Sansthan was well
within its rights to prematurely terminate petitioner's Service Agreement
of 11th November, 2013, but the grounds on which it has been
prematurely terminated cannot be justified.
3. In the considered opinion of this Court, the premature termination
of petitioner's Service Agreement of 11th November, 2013 deserves to be
maintained, but his removal from service on the charges is directed to be
treated as a simplicitor termination of petitioner's Service Agreement of
11th November, 2013. Meaning thereby, impugned order shall be read as
simplicitor termination of Service Agreement of 11th November, 2013
and it shall not carry any stigma.
4. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that Pension, PF, Gratuity and other dues were transferred by
petitioner's previous employer to respondent-Sansthan, which, according
to learned counsel for respondent, has been remitted back to the previous
employer i.e. National University of Educational Planning and
Administration, New Delhi. In such a situation, petitioner would be well
within his right to claim the amounts so remitted back by respondent-
Sansthan to petitioner's previous employer. So far as petitioner's claim for
gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund for the service rendered by
petitioner with respondent-Sansthan is concerned, petitioner would be at
liberty to seek it from respondent-Sansthan by filing an application within
a period of two weeks. If such an application is received by respondent-
Sansthan, then it be considered in terms of the applicable Rules and
Regulations. However, it is clarified that if respondent-Sansthan for any
reason chooses not to accept petitioner's application so filed, then the
reasons for non-acceptance be spelt out and conveyed to petitioner within
six weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as
available in law, if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 04, 2018
s
