Braj Mohan vs The Chancellor and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel, appearing for the University.

In this application, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing an office order dated 6.3.1987, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application, issued by the Principal, Arvind Mahila College (Respondent No. 4) pursuant to the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 30th of January, 1987, terminating the services of the Petitioner on the ground that his appointment was made without following prescribed procedures.

It is stated that although the services of the Petitioner was regularised after obtaining approval of the Vice Chancellor (Respondent No. 3), communicated through letter dated 12.10.1985, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application, the service of the Petitioner has been terminated without giving him any notice and an opportunity to show cause.

It appears the Petitioner had moved this Court earlier for quashing the aforesaid order and a Bench of this Court by order dated 19.9.1989, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5196 of 1989, noticing that the representation of the Petitioner was pending before the Chancellor, permitted him to withdraw the application with an observation that the representation of the Petitioner should be disposed of preferably within a period of four months. Thereafter, it appears the Petitioner also filed Anr. application, befor the Chancellor, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ application.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that as yet his representation has not been disposed of. Therefore, he has filed the present writ application.

No counter affidavit has been filed, controverting the submission of the Petitioner that the impugned order, terminating him from the service, has been passed without giving any opportunity, or even notice to file show cause. It has been pointed out that the Petitioner was working on temporary basis, therefore, he was not entitled to any notice.

There is no dispute that a Government servant, working on barely temporary basis, can be terminated even without any opportunity to him to file show cause. But the moment there is aspersion or allegation in the impugned order, such employee is entitled to a notice and other reasonable opportunity to defend his case in accordance with law. From mere perusal of the impugned order, it appears the same was issued on a ground that the appointment of the Petitioner was made without following the prescribed procedures and a post, which was not sanctioned. In our view, in such a situation, the concerned Authorities were required to give notice and reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause.

Having considered entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are disposing of this writ application at the stage of admission itself with a direction to the Respondents Vice Chancellor to give proper notice and opportunity to the Petitioner to submit show cause and other relevant materials in order to show that his appointment was not illegal. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 6.3.1987, as contained in Annexure 1, is quashed. The Respondent Vice Chancellor shall not dispose of the matter afresh within three months from the date of service of notice against the Petitioner.

Since we have quashed the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without giving any opportunity, the Petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, in case, the Vice-Chancellor comes to a conclusion that the appointment of the Petitioner was made after following proper procedures he shall be entitled for entire arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.

This writ application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent, indicated above.