AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
Through the instant petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for quashing the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-15), passed by the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, who was working as Senior Assistant, alongwith the charge-sheet dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure P-1), inquiry report dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure P-13), and all the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
Inter alia, learned counsel for the petitioner in order to throw challenge to the impugned order (supra), raised one principal argument that it has not been passed by the competent authority, as only the Vice-Chancellor is the competent authority for taking any disciplinary action, therefore, the same is in nullity.
On the basis of the above submissions, this Court vide order dated 05.08.2026, directed the respondent-university to inform as to whether the Vice-Chancellor has passed any order of dismissal against the petitioner or not.
In response to the above, today, learned counsel for the respondents-university, has placed on record a photocopy of vernacular order dated 30.12.2025 alongwith the true translated copy thereof, which are taken on record as Mark 'A'. A copy thereof, has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.
He further, on instructions, submits that in fact the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2025, is the original order of dismissal, which was passed by the Vice-Chancellor, and the said order of dismissal was communicated by the Registrar, through the order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-15) which is impugned before this Court. Therefore, for all purposes, the order of dismissal was passed by the Vice-Chancellor, and the petitioner has not challenged that order.
He further submits that order passed by the Vice-Chancellor is appealable, as per the rules, governing the service conditions of the petitioner.
Faced with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 30.12.2025, of the Vice-Chancellor was never communicated to the petitioner, thereby, leaving no other option for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Registrar.
He further submits that since now he has got the original order dated 30.12.2025, passed by the Vice-Chancellor, he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition, with liberty to challenge the same by filing the statutory appeal.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Appellate Authority concerned to challenge the aforesaid order.
In case, the petitioner files a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority concerned within a period of 30 days from the passing of this order, the latter concerned, shall make all its endeavours to decide the same, within a period of three months thereafter, after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
Alongwith the said appeal, if, an application seeking condonation of delay, is filed, the same shall be considered sympathetically, considering the fact that the petitioner had, at the first instance, approached this Court by filing a misconceived motion under bona fide impression.