C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994
Date of decision : November 18, 2008
Dr.J.K.Sharma,
...... Petitioner
through Mr.N.S.Gill , Advocate
v.
State of Haryana and others,
...... Respondents
through Mr.Deepak Jindal, AAG Haryana
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 5.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J
This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders, dated
1.6.1992 (Annexure P-30), 16.6.1992 ( Annexure P-31) and 24.12.1993
(Annexure P-33). By the first order, respondent No.2 approved the proposal
of respondent No.3 for terminating the services of the petitioner, whereupon
the order dated 16.6.1992 removing the petitioner from service was passed.
By the last order, the revision of the petitioner against the above mentioned
order was rejected.
The petitioner passed his Matriculation Examination from the
Punjab University in the year 1951 with 63% marks, Inter Examination from
the Punjab University in the year 1953 with 66% marks, B.A II from the
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::2::
Punjab University in the year 1955 with 58% marks, and M.A from Toronto
University Canada in the year 1963 with 75% marks. He completed his
Ph.D from Toronto University in the year 1969. He had been a College
Lecturer from 1959 to 1961 and Teaching fellow from Victoria University
from 1963 to 1965 and Assistant Professor in Mc Gill & Guelph University,
Canada from 1965 to 1969 and was visiting Professor in Jawaharlal Nehru
University, Delhi from 1979 to 1980. He had a host of publications to his
name.
The petitioner joined as Reader and Head of the Post Graduate
Department of English in the respondent-College, Sonepat on 8.7.1980.
Thereafter, in the month of September 1988, the post of Principal fell vacant
but the charge thereof was not given to the petitioner, who was the senior
most and was given to respondent No.5. Without going into the correctness
of the propriety of the above mentioned decision, it has to be noted that
this occurrence caused a rift between the petitioner and respondents No.3, 4
and 5 to the extent that the petitioner lodged a criminal complaint against
respondent No.5. Ultimately, by letter dated 7.12.1990, the petitioner was
charge-sheeted on the following charges :-
“No.1. It is alleged that you have been absented yourself
willfully from college duty on the following dates :-
i) You remained absent from 11th to 13th December,
1989, which you had accepted vide your letter dated
15.12.1989.
ii) You remained absent from 4.1.1990 to 29.3.1990.
You were asked to explain your position vide Principal’s
letter No.2623 and 2757 dated 22.2.1990 and 21.3.1990
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::3::respectively and also vide this office letter No.841-C
dated 14.4.1990. You have not cared even to
acknowledge any one of these letters, from the Principal.
It was also made clear that your salary would not be
claimed till the case of your unauthorised absence is
settled.
Iii) You are absenting from your duty since 9.11.1990.
You had been requested to start meeting your class vide
Principal’s letter no.1126-C dated 9.11.1990 and letter
no.1131-C dated 14.11.90. You neither started meeting
the class nor you have acknowledged the letter.
iv) You have not met even for a single day your M.A
3rd Semester Class from its very beginning in July 1990.
You have delivered no lecturer except only 2/3
introductory lectures to your MA Ist Semester class in the
current semester.
No.2
i) You have not submitted your class attendance
register inspite of my letter No.841-C dated 14.4.1990.
You have also not replied any one of my following
letters:-
i) letter No.2623 dated 22.2.1990. ii) -do- 2757 " 21.3.1990 iii) -do- 841-C " 14.4.1990You have rather filed a criminal case against the
Principal in the Hon’ble Court of C.J.M Sonepat. This is
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::4::dereliction of duty and disobedience and amounts to
gross misconduct. This action of yours has brought the
institution, which you are serving, into disrepute.
ii) You have not been marking your attendance in the
college inspite of this office letter no.28-H dated 11.5.90,
No.29-H dt. 14.5.90, No.1024-C dt. 11.7.90, 1028-C
dated 12.7.90 and No.1046-C dt.19.7.90. According to
DHE’s directions you have to stay in the college for a
minimum period of 5-1/2 hours per day and hence
attendance is compulsory. You have accepted vide your
letter dated 17.7.90 that you are not making your
attendance.
This is dereliction of duty on your part and disobedience
of the order of the Principal and amounts to gross
misconduct.
No.3. You are in the habit of leaving station without
prior permission and even without intimating and
leaving your address with the college office. Some of the
instances are given below :-
“Letter No.2623 dt.22.2.90 had to be sent at your
permanent address by post as you were neither
available at your local address nor station leave
was got sanctioned. On 2.3.90 you were not
available at your local address therefore, the notice
no.434 for the meeting of the staff members of the
PG department of english scheduled for 3.3.1990
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::5::could not be served upon you.
Letter No.1005-C dt. 22.6.90 was sent through
peon book at your local address but you were not
available that day and also the next day i.e 23rd
June, 1990. Letter No.144-H dt.30.11.90 and letter
No.146 of the same date could not be delivered to
you as you were not available in the college or at
your residence.”
This is disobedience and amounts to gross misconduct.
No.4. You have used derogatory language against the
Principal in your letter dated 13.5.1990 which is
reproduced below :-
i) This letter is a clear confession on your part
that all your recent actions against me have been
with mala fide, malicious, criminal intent of
causing harm harassment and injury to me.”
ii) Your illegal and mala fide persistence in
withholding my pay after your aforesaid letter
dated 19.4.90 is a clear case of criminal misuse of
office, power and authority vested in you as the
Principal of Hindu College, Sonepat and calls for
yet one more criminal case against you.”
iii) You are requesting me to perform extra
duties and at the same time illegally withholding
my legitimate pay is symptomatic of either an
unstable mind uplift to hold the responsible public
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::6::office of the Principal of an educational institution
or a self evident proof of a criminal psychic
condition.”
Regular inquiry was ordered which culminated into an inquiry
report dated 20.11.1991 holding charges 1 to 3 proven against the
petitioner.
Respondent No.2 in his order dated 28.5.1992 according
approval to the action of the respondent-College, noticed as follows :-
“….. Shri Sharma is highly educated as per his own
statement and fairly advanced in age and as such he is
expected to show due regard to the discipline and
decency in the educational institution. He has also failed
to give any satisfactory indication to the Governing Body
that he would even now perform his duties as per
schedule drawn by the Principal according to the Rules.”
After this approval, the petitioner was awarded the punishment
of removal from service. Ultimately, in revision, the revisional authority
held as follows :-
“….. During arguments it transpired that Dr. Sharma is a
knowledgeable teacher who has good rapport with the
students but has much ego and refused to accept the
norms of discipline of the college like sticking to the
schedule of time table, marking his attendance in the
register etc. The Principal of the college expressed his
willingness before me to drop every charge against Dr.
Sharma if he even now is willing to submit to ordinary
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::7::norms of discipline, like coming to college in time and
regularly, taking periods properly as per time schedule
and marking his attendance in the register. These are
normal methods of enforcing discipline and order in the
educational institutions and it becomes difficult for the
Principal to exempt one person and enforce it on the
others. Dr. Sharma was not willing to accept these
terms.”
Eventually, the revisional authority dismissed the revision
petition in the following terms :-
” It is unfortunate that the management has to lose
the services of a capable teacher who is not willing to
adjust the level of his ego to the required norms of
ordinary discipline. The revision petition is declined.”
Apart from these bare facts, the record of the case is peppered
with documents evidencing the personal rivalry between the petitioner and
respondent No.5 which does not show either of them in a very favourable
light.
It is against the backdrop of these facts that this petition has
been filed challenging the order of removal from service. However, one
glaring fact which has come in the orders of both respondent No.2 as well as
the revisional authority is that even before those authorities it was the case
of respondent No.1 that they were not averse to retain the petitioner
provided he subjected himself to their control. It is also to be noticed that
charges against the petitioner are directly related to the personal problem
between the petitioner and respondent No.5. It can not also be lost sight of
C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::8::
the fact that the petitioner would have retired in normal course in the year
1996. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that all the petitioner’s
dues have been released by the respondent-College.
Even though the power of judicial review is circumscribed, yet
I draw sustenance from the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India and another vs S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257,
wherein it has been held as follows :-
“…. The scope of judicial review in the matter of
imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary
proceedings, is very limited. The Court can interfere
with the punishment only if it finds the same to be
shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be
proved. In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter to
the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the
punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid
delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty……”
In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the impugned orders
of removing the petitioner from service are set aside with a caveat that the
petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit of service from the date of his
removal till the date of his superannuation.
Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of in the above
terms.
( AJAY TEWARI ) November 18, 2008. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 4668 of 1994 ::9::