CWP No.4510 IN Sr. No.247 Institute of Dr. Zafar CORAM: Present: TRIBHUVAN quashing by the Additional whereby services has reinstate him 2. financed No.4510 of 2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH No.247 of Law and Research, Jasana Versus Hussain and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, Mr. Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Ms. Lagan Kaur Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. Mohak Bhadana, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Babbar, Advocate, Mr. Abhyudaya Paliwal, Advocate, Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate, and Mr. Vijay Sheoran, Advocate, TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inter the judgment and order dated 15.02.2023, Additional District Judge-cum- letter/order dated 30.09.2022, has been set aside, and the petitioner/Institute him in service with back wages and Facts relevant to decide the Institute of Law which is affiliated 1 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4510 of 2023 Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 .... Petitioner Versus ... Respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Advocate, with Patwalia, Advocate, and Advocate, for the petitioner. Advocate, Advocate, and Advocate, for respondent no.1. and Advocate, for respondent no.5. inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari 15.02.2023, Annexure P-27, passed -Educational Tribunal, Faridabad, terminating the first respondent’s petitioner/Institute has been directed and other service benefits. matter are, the petitioner is a self affiliated to the Maharishi Dayanand 20.02.2025 Petitioner Respondents certiorari passed Faridabad, respondent’s directed to self- Dayanand MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 University. (earlier known letter dated Professor Annexure such on Annexure as under: No.4510 of 2023 2 University. The first respondent was initially known as National Institute of Law) dated 25.10.2002, Annexure P-1. Later, in Law, and offered the appointment Annexure P-3. Accepting the terms and conditions, 18.09.2014; the joining report Annexure P-4. Relevant terms and conditions 1. xxx xxx 2. Your services of the teaching any time by giving two months months salary in lieu thereof. given by the employee by giving lieu before leaving the service. 3. and 4. xxx xxx 5. You will not at any times any of the process/accounts/transactions Institute, whether the same may to you in the course of your time (either directly or business/undertaking whatsoever employment. 6. to 9. xxx xxx 10. Your appointment and to the feedback system conducted Head/HOD, senior members meet out the minimum standard fail to meet the required standard, demoted or your increments can 11. xxx xxx 12. You will be governed made applicable from time to 2 initially appointed in the Institute Law) as Lecturer, by the Director vide ater, he was selected on the post appointment vide letter dated 12.09.2014, conditions, he joined the service report is appended to the petition conditions of the appointment letter xxx teaching are subject to termination months notice or payment of two thereof. Similarly, required notice will giving two months notice or salary service. xxx xxx times disclose, divulge or make public process/accounts/transactions and dealing of may be concerned to you or known your employment or otherwise at any or indirectly) in any other whatsoever so long as you are in xxx xxx and continuation of service is subject conducted regularly from the students, members and presentation of teachers standard for qualify education. If you standard, you may be terminated, can be withheld. xxx governed by services rules and regulations to time by the Institute. Institute vide post of 12.09.2014, service as as are termination at two will be salary in public the known any other our subject students, teachers to you terminated, regulations MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 2.1. by the Institute’s University, vide letter matter and against the judicial services infrastructure was also and take classes there. At the Institute. a show cause comments dated 21.08.2019, centre/academy controlled that the first his own Principal the Director the Institute Tigaon, Faridabad, damage to 2.2. had been environment, No.4510 of 2023 3 A complaint against the first Institute’s teaching as well as non University, received by it on 03.07.2019. letter dated 11.07.2019, Annexure P and offer comments with documentary the first respondent were that he had services in the name of Zafar’s ucture of the Institute including car, alleged that he compelled the Institute’s classes there. Even the students the relevant time, the first respondent Institute. On receiving the complaint, cause notice, dated 14.08.2019, comments with documentary evidence. He 21.08.2019, Annexure P-8, refuting centre/academy anywhere, and Zafar’s Judicial controlled by Ms. Renu Dhawan (his wife). first respondent wrote a letter dated handwriting that he shall resign with effect from 30.08.2021, but Director and teaching staff of dire consequences. Institute again made complaints against Faridabad, dated 28.08.2021, Annexures to their life and property at his hands. In this view of the matter, and working against the Institute’s environment, the Principal put up a note 3 respondent dated nil was submitted non-teaching faculty to the affiliating 03.07.2019. It was forwarded to the Institute P-6, with a request to examine documentary evidence. The allegations had opened a coaching academy Judicial Academy, and was using car, petrol, etc., for his academy. Institute’s teaching faculty to come were being forced to take coaching respondent was working as Principal Director of the Institute issued him 14.08.2019, Annexure P-7, asking for He submitted the comments/reply, refuting that he had opened any coaching Judicial Academy was managed and wife). It also needs to be mentioned dated 02.09.2019, Annexure P-11, resign from the post of officiating but refused to do so and threatened consequences. Thereafter, teachers against him to SHO, Police Station Annexures P-13 to P-18, apprehending hands. and finding that the first respondent Institute’s norms and spoiling the academic dated 21.09.2022, Annexure P- submitted affiliating Institute the allegations for using academy. It come coaching Principal of him his s/reply, coaching and mentioned 11, in officiating threatened teachers of Station apprehending respondent academic -21, MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 for approval that ‘his services allowed appointment ‘termination 30.09.2022, giving a cheque, period amounting his remarks 21.10.2022, account statement, 2.3. 30.09.2022, decided vide appellant/first without holding termination following (Security Haryana ‘the 1980 and holding followed. aside directing 2.4. petition against No.4510 of 2023 4 approval before the Director, being the services are not required at this institute with immediately effect as per appointment letter’. The note was approved termination is allowed’. Accordingly, 30.09.2022, Annexure P-23, relieved the cheque, dated 30.09.2022, of salary amounting to `2,49,520. He received remarks ‘Not Accepted. I am signing under 21.10.2022, the cheque was encashed by statement, Annexure P-24. Thereafter, he challenged 30.09.2022, by filing an appeal before the vide impugned judgment, dated appellant/first respondent could not have holding an enquiry or granting him termination order is stigmatic and could following the Principles of Natural Justice. of Service) Act, 1979 (for short, Affiliated Colleges (Security of 1980 Rules’), provided mandatory procedure holding disciplinary enquiry before Therefore, the order of termination directing his reinstatement with full The Institute has approached against the Tribunal’s judgment, dated 4 the appointing authority, requesting institute and his termination may per norms and conditions of approved by the Director with the remarks the Principal, vide letter dated the first respondent from duties salary in lieu of two months’ notice received the relieving letter and endorsed under pressure’. Sometime later, by him as established from his Bank challenged the termination order, dated the Educational Tribunal which was dated 15.02.2023, holding that have been terminated from service him an opportunity of hearing. The could not have been passed without Justice. The Haryana Affiliated Colleges short, ‘the Act of 1979’), and of Service) Rules, 1980 (for short, procedure of issuing a chargesheet before termination, which too was termination was declared illegal and back wages. approached this Court by filing the instant dated 15.02.2023. requesting may be his remarks dated by notice endorsed later, on Bank dated was the service The without Colleges the short, chargesheet not set instant MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 3. contended with the therewith well by encashing cannot be been relieved is not stigmatic levelled against enquire into terms of Therefore, of 1980. Lastly termination contract of claim compensation 4. that the termination allegations academic authorities, the faculty chargesheet the order not the appointing 5. considered. No.4510 of 2023 5 In this background, Mr. Patwalia, contended that the first respondent had Institute, and his services were by paying the notice period salary encashing the cheque on 21.10.2022. be termed illegal. He further contends relieved from service pursuant to the stigmatic in any manner as it does against him. The Institute decided into the matter; instead, it took a the contract of service entered Therefore, no regular enquiry into the matter Lastly, it has been contended that termination illegal, the first respondent is of service cannot be specifically compensation in lieu thereof. Per contra, learned counsel termination order is stigmatic as allegations levelled against the first respondent environment at the Institute, authorities, misusing power during his tenure faculty. Therefore, it could not have chargesheet and holding a regular enquiry. is not sustainable since it has been appointing authority. Submissions made by learned considered. 5 Patwalia, learned senior counsel, entered into a contract of service were terminated strictly in terms salary which was accepted by him 21.10.2022. Therefore, the termination contends that the first respondent the order of termination simplicitor; does not refer to any of the allegations decided not to go into the allegations and a decision to relieve him simply entered into by him, dated 12.09.2014. matter was called for under the Rules that even if this Court is to hold is not entitled to reinstatement as specifically enforced. He, at the most, can counsel for the first respondent contends it has been passed on the basis respondent which include spoiling disobeying the orders of higher tenure as Principal and threatening have been passed without issuing enquiry. It has also been contended that been passed by the Principal who learned counsel for the parties have been counsel, service terms him as termination has simplicitor; it allegations and simply in 12.09.2014. Rules the the can contends basis of spoiling higher threatening issuing a that who is been MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 6. contract appointment Professor complaints powers, spoiling complaints Thereupon, respondent. resign as so. The matter was taken. faculty, dated the Director, considering respondent Principal the letter lieu of the by him on 7. service which by either of termination reads as under: No.4510 of 2023 6 It is apparent on record that of service with the Institute, appointment as Professor in Law, dated and holding the charge as Principal complaints against him of running a private spoiling academic environment, ts were received through the affiliating Thereupon, a show cause notice, dated 14.08.2019, respondent. He replied to the same, and officiating Principal with effect matter was allowed to rest there by taken. However, more complaints were dated 28.08.2021. All these facts were Director, who is the appointing authority, considering the allegations levelled he respondent from service on 22.09.2022. relieved him from service as per of appointment, dated 12.09.2014, the notice period vide cheque dated on 21.10.2022. Undisputedly, the first respon which was determinable in nature party on two months’ notice or salary termination dated 30.09.2022 was issued under: It is hereby intimated that your Research, Jasana are no longer 6 the first respondent entered into Institute, as contained in the letter dated 12.09.2014. While working Principal of the Institute, there had been private judicial academy, misusing threatening the faculty, etc. These affiliating University on 03.07.2019. 14.08.2019, was issued to the first and also wrote a letter that he shall from 30.08.2021, but refused to by the Institute and no further action were received against him from were placed by the Principal before authority, for appropriate decision; allowed the termination of first 22.09.2022. In compliance therewith, per terms and conditions contained 12.09.2014, by giving two months’ salary dated 30.09.2022, which was encashed respondent entered into a contract nature as it could have been terminated salary in lieu thereof, and the letter issued to him in terms therewith your services in Institute of Law and longer required w.e.f. 30.09.2022 as into a of as been his These 03.07.2019. first shall to do action the before decision; first the contained in salary in encashed contract of terminated letter therewith. It and per MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 Evidently, levelled against appointing termination regular enquiry procedure issuing a followed that of dismissal/removal scale, or withholding to be imposed. contemplated 8. initially complaints University 28.08.2021 nor any findings No.4510 of 2023 7 terms and conditions of ILRF/2014/219(A) dated 12.09.2014, and signed by you. A cheque No. 117607 dated Two lac forty nine thousand five the notice period of two appointment letter is hereby enclosed. It has the consent and approval appointing authority. Therefore, you are hereby 30.09.2022. (A/D). Your pending credited in your bank account Institute. tly, the letter of termination does against the first respondent, and appointing authority, that his services termination was not done as a measure enquiry was not required to be procedure laid down under Appendix ‘C’ chargesheet and holding disciplinary only if any of the major punishments dismissal/removal from service, or withholding of annual increments imposed. This is not the case here, contemplated or imposed upon the first respondent No doubt allegations were complaints against him were University on 03.07.2019 and later from 28.08.2021; however, the allegations/complaints findings of any kind were recorded 7 your appointment letter dated 12.09.2014, which were duly accepted 30.09.2022 Rs.2,49,520/- (Rupees five hundred twenty only) in lieu months as mentioned in your enclosed. approval of the management and relieved from your duties w.e.f. pending dues/salary, if any will account after the final clearance from not refer to any of the allegations and conveys, with the consent services are no longer required. The of punishment and, consequently, be conducted in the matter. The ‘C’ of the Rules of 1980 regarding disciplinary enquiry is required to punishments stipulated therein, including or reduction to a lower post or time increments of pay with cumulative effect, here, as no such punishment was respondent. levelled against his conduct, received through the affiliating rom the Institute faculty on dated /complaints were never enquired into, recorded establishing his misconduct in any dated accepted (Rupees lieu of your and w.e.f. be the allegations of The consequently, The regarding be including time effect, is was as affiliating dated into, any MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 manner. It’s respondent, misconduct rights to do allegations his service A reference Supreme Corporation reads as under: 9. having been authority, the first respondent, the appointing No.4510 of 2023 8 It’s a case where due to the cloud respondent, the Institute, instead of holding misconduct alleged, decided not to retain do so by terminating the contract allegations against the first respondent only service and not the foundation, therefore, reference in this regard can be made to Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta Corporation Ltd. and another, (1999) 2 SCC under: 33. … In all these cases, the merely raised a cloud on his Iyer, J. in Gujarat Steel Tubes say that he would not continue allegations were made the truth interested to ascertain. In fact, simple order of termination appointment or as permitted benefit on the employee termination so that the employee stigma which would attach to or other punitive order was passed. where the allegations whose merely the motive. Further, the submission that been passed by the Principal, though is also without substance. The Principal respondent, dated 30.09.2022, after appointing authority/Director by approving 8 cloud of allegations against the first holding an enquiry to establish retain him in service, and was within contract of service in terms therewith. T only formed the motive to terminate therefore, no exception can be taken to to the settled law as reiterated by pta v. U.P. State Agro Industries SCC 21; relevant paragraph whereof the allegations against the employee conduct and as pointed by Krishna Tubes case the employer was entitled continue an employee against whom truth of which the employer was fact, the employer by opting to pass termination as permitted by the terms permitted by the rules was conferring by passing a simple order employee would not suffer from any to the rest of his career if a dismissal passed. The above are all examples truth has not been found, and were the order of termination is illegal though Director was the competent Principal issued termination letter after his termination was ordered proving a note on the office file first the within its The terminate to it. the Industries whereof employee Krishna entitled to whom not pass a of conferring a of any dismissal examples were illegal competent letter to ordered by file to MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP No.4510 that effect, Tribunal as 10. and the impugned 20.02.2025 Maninder No.4510 of 2023 9 effect, dated 21.09.2022, which was as well. In view of the reasons aforementioned, impugned judgment by the Tribunal, 20.02.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 9 was placed on record before aforementioned, the petition is allowed, Tribunal, dated 15.02.2023, is set aside. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes Yes the allowed, aside. MANINDER 2025.03.25 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.