The Vice Chancellor vs Dr. Sudhakar Madhavendi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3181 Tel

     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

1993 (3) SCC 259

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.

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