Umesh Nath Tiwary vs Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi And Ors

Heard counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of notification as contained in Memo No. RU/ R/ 5768/ 19, dated 29.05.2019 [Annexure-4], whereby salary of the petitioner has been stopped from 25.05.2019 by the decision taken by Syndicate and communicated through Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi.

Case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Department of English in Karam Chand Bhagat College, Bero, Ranchi on 17.07.1985 after following due process of appointment and since then he has been continuously working as such. At the time of appointment, said College was affiliated College under the Ranchi University, Ranchi and later on it was taken over as a Constituent Unit of Ranchi University in the 4th Phase Taken Over Colleges. Petitioner is aggrieved by stoppage of salary by order of Syndicate communicated through Registrar, dated 25.05.2019 and hence this writ petition.

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar and Ms. Satakshi draws attention of this Court towards impugned order and argues that illegally and arbitrarily without affording any opportunity opf hearing, respondent - University has stopped salary of the petitioner. It has further been argued that till date no departmental proceeding has been initiated neither petitioner has been put under suspension. Merely on a complaint, a decision has been taken by the Syndicate communicated through the Registrar of the University to stop salary of the petitioner who continued as a Lecturer since the year 1985 without any break. Learned counsel further submits that salary of the petitioner cannot be stopped without affording any opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason. In the instant case, salary of the petitioner has been stopped without assigning any reasons. Reasons has been assigned in the counter affidavit which is not admissible in the eyes of law and as such a direction may be issued to the respondents - university to pay salary of the petitioner as he is still working.

Per contra counter affidavit has been filed.

Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as Syndicate has already taken a decision not to pay salary to the petitioner on the basis of a complaint received, the matter was inquired and it was found that petitioner had obtained appointment to the post of Lecturer on the basis of forged marks sheet of M.A.. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards paragraphs 11 and 13 of the counter affidavit and submits that departmental proceeding has already been initiated and is likely to be concluded within a period of two months. Paragraphs 11 and 13 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

"11. That the statements made in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 are not admitted by the respondents. The petitioner has stated that he filed a writ application being CWJC No. 1782 No. 1782 of 1981 (R) on 04.11.1981 for reevaluation of the marks and by an order dated 01.03.1982 the writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the University to reevaluate the answer books and publish the result. The petitioner states that only thereafter the revised mark sheet bearing No. 80/ 6199, dated 15.08.1981 has been issued by the Ranchi University showing that he has passed M.A. Examination held on November, 1980 in 2nd Class securing an aggregate of 443 marks against the total of 800 marks and therefore he has obtained 55.37% marks (Annexure-6).

The mark sheet contained in Annexure-6 is said to have been issued on 15th August, 1981 which is a holiday. Further, CWJC No. 1782 of 1981 (R) was filed on 04.11.1981 i.e. after 2 and ½ months of issuance of the mark sheet dated 15.08.1981. The writ application has been disposed of on 01.03.1982 and therefore the mark sheet dated 15.08.1981 could not have been issued thereafter.

The petitioner has submitted self-attested copy of the mark sheet No. 80/6199 dated 15.08.1981. He has attested the mark sheet on 17.08.2019. The University has once again verified the tabulation register of the Examination Department, Ranchi University, Tabulation Register in the P.G. Department of Ranchi University and mark sheet No. 6199 dated 15.08.1981 and has found that the mark sheet submitted by the petitioner is fake as it records completely different marks than those recorded in the tabulation registers. Both the tabulation registers show that the petitioner has failed in M.A. Examination.

... ... ...

That the statements made in paragraphs 19, 20, 21 of the writ application are not correct. It is stated that the mark sheet of the petitioner was examined by a Committee in the year 2014. It is stated that the primary document is the tabulation register. It is stated that the tabulation register available at the P.G. Department of English, Ranchi University, Ranchi which is completely untampered shows that the petitioner has failed in the examination. The mark sheet produced by the petitioner is therefore fake. The assertion of the petitioner that mark sheet dated 15.08.1981 has been issued subsequent to the passing of the order dated 01.03.1982 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1782 of 1981 (R) is not correct. It is stated that the report dated 03.03.2014 has remained unattended and only when the matter has resurfaced, the file was placed before the Syndicate of the Ranchi University and the Syndicate has taken a decision on 25.05.2019 to hold up the salary of the petitioner and two others.

Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. The matter is very much settled on the point that salary of an employee cannot be stopped without affording any opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reasons. In the instant case, respondents have allowed the petitioner to continue to work and taken work from him and allowed him to continue to the said post right from the year 1985. Merely on the basis of complaint, a departmental proceeding has been initiated. Departmental proceeding has to come to a logical end.

In the case of Kripa Nand Jha Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited reported in 2006 (3) JCR 24 : 2006 (3) JLJR 522, this Court has held that non-payment of salary for the period an employee worked is arbitrary and unjustified. Para-8 of the said Judgment reads as under:

"8. Admittedly, till date petitioner was not served any show cause notice nor any inquiry was held before withholding the salary for the period in question. On the contrary, respondents agreed to settle the claim and make payment of the salary for the period in question in the Lok Adalat. In my view, nonpayment of salary to the petitioner is arbitrary and unjustified."

Let the departmental proceeding be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, as the respondents have not passed any order of suspension, petitioner is entitled for salary as he is still working as on date. Respondents - University is directed to pay salary to the petitioner till conclusion of departmental proceeding in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.