Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sabir Hussain vs Director General Higher ... on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.221
CWP-18000-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.1.2021
Sabir Hussain ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Director General Higher Education, Panchkula and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Behgal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in
Chemistry vide appointment order dated 14.12.2017 in respondent No.2.
According to the terms of his appointment, he was to remain on probation
for a period of three years. However, the second respondent discovered that
certain documents pertaining to sports activities and NCC activities were
bogus and therefore, show-cause-notices dated 31.8.2019 and 6.9.2019 were
issued. The said notices were replied vide replies dated 6.9.2019 and
9.9.2019, respectively. Thereafter, the matter was referred to a Committee
of Enquiry in accordance with Rule 8 (2) of the Haryana Affiliated College
(Security of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the '2006
Rules') which submitted its report dated 18.11.2019, finding the petitioner
guilty of the aforementioned act. Based thereon, the Governing Body
adopted Resolution dated 4.12.2019 to terminate the services of the
petitioner and accordingly, termination order of even date i.e. 4.12.2019
(Annexure P-10) was issued. Appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance
1 of 4
with 2006 Rules has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2020
(Annexure P-18).
The sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the termination of the services of the petitioner was stigmatic in nature and
thus, his services could not have been terminated except after conducting a
regular enquiry. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Ashok Kumar Chopra Vs. Union of India and others, 2019 (2) SCT 262,
as well as judgments passed in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra
Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, 1999 (1) SCT 861 and
Union of India and others Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi, 2010 (3) SCT 578.
In response, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3
submits that the petitioner had secured the appointment on the basis of
mis-representation and thus, the show-cause-notices were issued to him.
The matter was also enquired into by Committee of Enquiry constituted in
accordance with Rule 8(2)(b) of 2006 Rules, even though, the said Rule was
not strictly applicable. The Enquiry Committee found the petitioner guilty of
submitting bogus certificates and thus, recommended termination of his
services. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
Further, the services of a probationer can be terminated at any time during
the period of probation, even without giving any reason. He relies upon
Amarjeet Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and
others, 2012 (2) RSJ 545.
The relevant part of the termination order dated 4.12.2019 is
reproduced below:-
2 of 4
'You got appointment by presenting extra-curricular
activities certificates (NCC & Sports) before the Selection
Committee at the time of interview for the post of Asstt.
Professor in Chemistry on 25.10.2017. These extra-curricular
activities certificates of NCC & Sports were found bogus/not
genuine on re-verification from the concerned departments.
The Committee constituted under article 8(2)(b) of the Haryana
Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rule 2006 submitted its
enquiry report dated 18.11.2019 in this regard.'
The reason for termination of services of the petitioner as
contained in the aforementioned extract of letter dated 4.12.2019 is
submission of bogus certificates of NCC and sports. The same amounts to a
serious mis-conduct on the part of an employee and thus, the question arises
whether, the services of such an employee can be terminated without
conducting a regular enquiry ?
Learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in relying upon
judgments in Ashok Kumar Chopra Vs. Union of India and others, 2019
(2) SCT 262, Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National
Centre for Basic Sciences, 1999 (1) SCT 861 and Union of India and
others Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi, 2010 (3) SCT 578. It is by now well
settled that the services of a probationer cannot be terminated on account of
mis-conduct except after conducting an enquiry in accordance with law and
rules. A chargesheet must be issued and the delinquent official is required to
file his reply thereto. An Enquiry Officer needs to be appointed thereafter,
3 of 4
who would conduct an enquiry by following the principles of natural justice.
Thereafter, another show-cause-notice has to be issued to the delinquent
official. The judgment in Amarjeet Singh's case (supra) relied upon by
learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 is not applicable because that
was a case of termination simplicitor of a probationer.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order
dated 4.12.2019 (Annexure P-10) as well as appellate order dated
12.10.2020 (Annexure P-18) are set aside. Respondents No.2 and 3 shall
however, be at liberty to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
(SUDHIR MITTAL)
JUDGE
12.1.2021
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
4 of 4
