2026:JHHC:17708 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5122 of 2025 ….….. Dr. Suman Kumar, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Nageshwar Singh, Resident of Azad Nagar, Rasikpur, P.O.-Dumka, P.S. Dumka Town, Dist.-Dumka. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, Dist.-Dumka, PIN 814110 through its Registrar S.K.M. University, Dumka. 2. Governing Body of A.N. College, Dumka through its Secretary, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, Dist.-Dumka, PIN-814110. 3. Principal/Professor-in-Charge, A.N. College, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, Dist.-Dumka, PIN-814110. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate ….….. C.A.V. ON: 11/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:- i.To quash and set aside the order of dismissal from service imposed against the petitioner by the Governing Body of A.Ν. College, Dumka and communicated by the Professor-In- Charge/Principal of the College i.e. Annexure-29 to this writ petition. ii.For a direction upon the Governing Body of A.N. College, Dumka to reinstate the petitioner on the post of in the Assistant Professor Department of Political Science in the Α.Ν. College, Dumka immediately. iii.For a direction upon the of respondent Governing Body A.N. College, Dumka to pay full salary, allowances and all other consequential benefits for the period the petitioner has been kept out of service under the impugned order of dismissal. iv.For a direction upon the respondent (s) concerned to allow the petitioner to mark his attendance, engage classes and work as a normal Assistant Professor in the College. v.To grant a stay on the operation, implementation and execution of the order dismissal from service passed against the petitioner vide Annexure-29 to the instant Writ Petition. 2026:JHHC:17708 2 CASE OF THE PETITIONER. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on purely temporary basis, in the Department of Political Science at A.N. College, Dumka pursuant to Advertisement no. ANCS/03/88 on a sanctioned vacant post by the Governing Body of the College vide Ref. No. ANCS/412/89 dated 11.02.1989. After being appointed, the petitioner gave his joining on 13.02.1989. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as bursar vide Memo no. ANC/E221/94 dated 14.05.1994. Subsequently the petitioner sought permission of the Governing Body to work as part time Journalist. Since 1997 the petitioner started working as part time Journalist on honorarium basis besides working as regular lecturer in the Political Science department of the said college. The petitioner was also appointed as N.S.S programme officer of N.S.S unit-1 of the college for a term of three years. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner had submitted that vide letter no. 326 dated 29.02.2008, the ‘Jharkhand Public Service Commission’ (In short J.P.S.C.) granted provisional concurrence on the temporary appointment of the petitioner till the regular appointment in the said college. Subsequently vide letter no. 815 dated 08.07.2009, the J.P.S.C extended the provisional concurrence on the temporary appointment of the petitioner and others. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner further submitted that on 15.02.2010, the petitioner was elected as Teachers’ Representative and became member of the Governing Body of the college. The college applied for NAAC accreditation on 16.06.2016 and in the forwarding report the petitioner was shown as working member. Petitioner has pleaded that though no payment was made to the petitioner from 01.01.2012 to 2026:JHHC:17708 3 31.12.2022 but his continuation in the college has been certified by the Prof-in-charge of the college. 6. During the interregnum period, the ‘NOC’ was issued to the petitioner for applying on the post of Assistant Professor. Relying upon various documents on records, the petitioner has pleaded that he has been working in the said college from 1989 till 2022 regularly. 7. Further case of the petitioner is that the Governing Body of the College in its meeting dated 10.05.2023 took decision to make payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2023. Being aggrieved by the said decision, some teachers of the college gave representation to the Registrar, S.K.M. University, Dumka to remove the petitioner on the ground that he had worked in Hindustan Newspaper as staff/reporter on permanent/regular basis till he attained the age of 58 years. Subsequently, on 05.12.2023 a committee was constituted to look into the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Said committee submitted its report on 16.12.2023; however, no finding was given. Subsequently another representation was made to the Hon’ble Governor and as a result the O.S.D (Judicial) to the Governor vide letter no. 342 dated 02.02.2024 sought report from the University. In response thereof; the University again constituted a committee vide memo no. SKMU/OSD/021/24 dated 10.02.2024, which sought the reply from the petitioner vide letter dated 21.02.2024 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 23.02.2024. Another explanation was sought by the said committee on 16.03.2024 to which the petitioner submitted reply on 20.03.2024. The said committee submitted its report on 31.05.2024 recommending that the Governing Body of the College may be directed to take suitable decision in the light of University Act, 2000. 2026:JHHC:17708 4 8. It was further submitted that on 19.02.2025 the Governing Body of the College took decision to debar the petitioner from teaching and making attendance in the college and the petitioner was further asked to submit documents in his favour in the next G.B meeting on 03.03.2025. It appears that in the meeting of the G.B held on 03.03.2025 it was decided to sought explanation from the petitioner for his absence of 11 years from the college, pursuant to the said decision of G.B, a show cause dated 05.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner. In response to the show cause the petitioner sought certain documents vide letter dated 13.05.2025 and though reply to the same was given by the college vide letter dated 14.05.2025 but entire documents were not provided. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 23.05.2025. Ultimately the petitioner was terminated by the Governing Body from the post Assistant Professor, Political Science in the said college and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. ANC/155/25 dated 03.06.25. 9. Assailing the letter no. ANC/155/25 dated 03.06.25 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same being arbitrary and is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. CASE OF THE RESPONDENT No. 2 & 3 10. Per-contra the Respondent nos. 2 & 3 (A.N. College, Dumka) appeared and filed counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 2 & 3 submitted that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis on 11.02.1989. Subsequently the J.P.S.C. vide letter no. 326 dated 29.02.2008, granted provisional concurrence on the temporary appointment of the petitioner till the regular appointment in the said college. Subsequently, vide letter no. 815 dated 08.07.2009 the J.P.S.C 2026:JHHC:17708 5 extended the provisional concurrence on the temporary appointment of the petitioner and others. 11. It has been submitted that while the petitioner was working on purely temporary basis, he proceeded to join ‘Hindustan Media Ventures Limited’ (H.M.V.L) and he worked there as permanent employee from 01.01.2012 till his retirement on 31.03.2023 as is evident from letter dated 01.04.2024 by the ‘H.M.V.L’ addressed to the Principal of the College. 12. It was further submitted that the fact that the petitioner was working with H.M.V.L is also evident from EPFO/Member passbook which shows that the petitioner joined H.M.V.L on 01.01.2012 and he worked there till December 2016 and thereafter his service was transferred to H.T Digital Streams Ltd. on 01.01.2017 where he worked for next six years before attaining retirement. 13. The further case of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is that from 01.01.2012 till 31.01.2023 no salary was paid by the college to the petitioner. After retirement on 31.01.2023, the petitioner started coming to the college; however, when no salary was paid to him, he submitted representation on 31.03.2023 for payment of salary which was allowed by ‘G.B’ from February, 2023 onwards. Pursuant to this decision, a complaint was made to the Chancellor and in response thereof; the O.S.D (J) to the Governor sought report from the University vide letter no. 324 dated 02.02.2024. Subsequently, the University constituted a committee which after giving opportunity to the petitioner submitted a report on 31.05.2024 observing that the petitioner was continuously absent from duty at the college without giving any information and that he was permanently employed at another organization for a long period of 11 years from where he superannuated on 31.01.2023. 2026:JHHC:17708 6 14. The committee further recommended that the G.B of the college may be directed to take suitable decision in the light of Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. 15. It was further submitted that thereafter the G.B in its meeting dated 03.05.2025 decided to seek explanation from the petitioner with respect to his unauthorized absence from the college for 11 (eleven) years. Thereafter, the petitioner sought certain documents vide letter dated 13.05.2025 which was responded by the college vide letter dated 14.05.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.05.2023, which was considered by the G.B in its meeting dated 29.05.2025 and was found to be unsatisfactory and thus G.B came to conclusion that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from the college from 01.01.2012 to 31.01.2023 and accordingly the G.B unanimously decided to terminate the services of the petitioner as Assistant Professor, Political Science, A. N. College, Dumka and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. ANC/155/25 dated 03.06.25. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS. 16. Having gone through the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. 17. This court finds that the petitioner was appointed on 11.02.1989 as Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at A.N. College, Dumka, purely on temporary basis. Subsequently, the ‘Jharkhand Public Service Commission’ vide letter no. 326 dated 29.02.2008 granted provisional concurrence on the temporary appointment of the petitioner till the regular appointment in the said college. Subsequently vide letter no. 815 dated 08.07.2009, the J.P.S.C extended the 2026:JHHC:17708 7 provisional concurrence on the temporary appointment of the petitioner and others. Thus, it appears that service of the petitioner was temporary in nature. 18. This Court further finds that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the concerned authority mainly on the ground of misconduct of unauthorized absence of 11 (eleven) years i.e. from 01.01.2012 to 31.01.2023. 19. As long back in 1958 the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 held that a temporary employee, if is sought to be terminated on account of his misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or like, such termination causing penal consequences would attract Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and even a "temporary servant" is entitled for such protection." 20. In the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma (2002) 1 SCC 520, Hon'ble Supreme court in paragraphs 21 held as under:- "21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a fullscale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld…..” 21. A bare perusal of the impugned letter no. ANC/155/25 dated 03.06.2025 indicates the facts that the Governing Body of the College has not conducted departmental inquiry thereby making the same punitive in nature. 22. The law is well settled that the thing should be done in the manner it is provided; therefore, the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. The authority had to record the reasons as to how inquiry was dispensed with but no such reasons have been recorded by the authority. Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India clarifies that the authority empowered to dismiss or 2026:JHHC:17708 8 remove a person or to reduce a person in rank has to record its satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. 23. In the present case, authority has not recorded any reason as to how it is not practicable to hold inquiry. CONCLUSION. 24. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, impugned letter no. ANC/155/25 dated 03.06.2025, is hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the case is once again remitted to the disciplinary authority to initiate a regular Departmental Inquiry by issuing charge memo to the petitioner and thereafter examine witness after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine. Inquiry report must be submitted before the disciplinary authority who shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law following the principles of natural Justice. 25. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands partly allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove. Pending I.As, if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 19.06.2026