Dr. S.P. Gupta vs Kirori Mal College & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 1208 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                         Date of Order: February 20, 2018
+            W.P.(C) 1615/2018 & CM Nos.6633-34/2018
      DR. S.P. GUPTA                                    ..... Petitioner
                 Through:        Dr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate with Petitioner
                                 in person
                                 versus

      KIRORI MAL COLLEGE & ORS                 ..... Respondents
               Through: Mr.Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate for R-1
                        and R-2
                        Mr.Amit Bansal and Ms.Seema Dolo,
                        Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                       ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Impugned order of 30th November, 2017 terminates petitioner's service with effect from 8th April, 2017.

2. To assail the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an Ex-Principal of respondent-college who has rendered 42 years of service and on the last date of the superannuation, his service has been terminated without there being approval of the impugned order by the Executive Council of respondent-College. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that denial of retiral benefits is wholly unjustified and compensation/damages to the tune of `1.25 crores is sought in this petition.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent-College submits that against impugned termination order, petitioner has to file a statutory appeal under Clause 9 to the Annexure to Ordinance XII to the Delhi University W.P.(C) No.1615/2018 Page 1 Act, 1922 and regarding the retiral benefits, the Governing Body of the respondent-College is yet to decide whether the contributory provident fund of petitioner is to be forfeited or not which would be subject to the approval of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to the minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body of respondent-College (Annexure P-3).

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Ordinance XX-F pertaining to the respondent-College, there is no provision of any appeal against impugned termination and in any case, the termination of petitioner's service is required to be approved by the Executive Council of the respondent-University and not by the Vice Chancellor. Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner's counsel to Ordinance XVIII-D to point out that the applicability of Ordinance XII is confined to certain clauses of Ordinance XII which does not include Clause 9 of Ordinance XII. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is evident from the Inquiry Report that conducting of UGC Net Examination by petitioner has not caused any financial loss nor has resulted in any financial gain to petitioner and at best, it is a case of financial irregularity. So, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and retiral benefits ought to be released to petitioner forthwith as petitioner being a heart patient is finding it difficult to take care of his medical expenses.

5. Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, the relevant Ordinances as referred above, I find that against impugned order, petitioner is required to file an appeal in terms of Clause 9 to the Annexure to Ordinance XII of the Delhi University Act, 1922. The petitioner is granted 2 W.P.(C) No.1615/2018 Page 2 weeks' time to file the statutory appeal against the impugned order. So far as release of retiral benefits and the compensation sought is concerned, it will depend upon the outcome of the statutory appeal.

6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to call upon the Appellate Authority to decide petitioner's appeal (if so filed) within a period of 6 weeks and the fate of the appeal be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be. The aspect of forfeiture of petitioner's contributory fund is required to be dealt with by the concerned authorities within a period of four weeks, if petitioner chooses to file a Representation within a week, to claim the contributory provident fund dues. The fate of the said Representation (if so received) be promptly conveyed to petitioner.

7. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.

                                                            (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                               JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
mamta




W.P.(C) No.1615/2018                                                     Page 3