ORDER
Shethna, J.
(1). This writ petition was filed by original petitioner Ram Chandra, who was class IV employee of the respondent University. He worked with the University from 3.6.1963 upto 21.2.1986, the date on which his services were lerminated by the impugned order at Annex. 4. Before termination, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 30.1.1984. Thereafter, he was served with show cause notice dated 12.3.1985, which was replied by the original petitioner and after considering the same, by the impugned order dated 21.2.1986 (Annex. 4) his services were terminated.
(2). Almost for the identical charges of petty theft of supplementary, a criminal case was also filed againsl him, which was registered as criminal case no. 185/84 for the offences punishable u/S. 380, 420 and 465 I.P.C. Unfortunately, as usual, there was a gross delay of ten years in conclusion of that criminal case, which resulted into the order of acquittal dated 19.8.94 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur. Instead of rushing to this Court immediately after the order of acquittal was passed in his favour, he approached the respondent University by representation dated 14.12.1994, 22.3.1995 and 23.8.95 requesting the University to take him back into service in view of the order passed in his favour of the competent
criminal Court. All the said three representations were finally replied by the University on 11.11.1995 (Annex. 3) stating that his request to take him back in service cannot be accepted. Without wasting further time, this petition was filed before court on 15.1.1996 by the original petitioner Ram Chandra challenging the orders dated 11.11.1995 (Anex. 3) rejecting his representations and the order dated 21.2,1986 (Annex. 4) terminating his services. On 16.2.1996, this petition was straightway admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents. In response to the said notice, detailed reply affidavit has been filed by Ihe respondent University alongwith the death” certificate of original petitioner Ram Chandra, who died on 1.4.1997 during the pendency of this writ petition. On the death of Shri Ram Chandra, his legal representatives i.e. his widow and three children, one son and two daughters have come on record and prosecuted this petition.
(3). When this petition had come up before me on 26.7.2000, Shri Salil Trivedi, learned counsel for Ihe petitioners staled at the bar that if the respondent University withdraws the impugned order of removal dated 21.2.1986 passed against the original petitioner Ram Chandra and treat him as retired from service from that date and grant family pension to Ihe bereaved family members of deceased Ram Chandra then he will not press this petition and not claim other benefits. His only request was that in place of Ram Chandra any member of his family be given appointment on the post of class IV employee. This was put to Mr. Jangid appearing for the respondent University, who stated at the bar that he will put this proposal to the University. However, after some adjournments in this mailer, it was stated at the bar by Shri Jangid that University is not prepared to accept Ihe aforesaid proposal. Under the circumstances, I am called upon to decide this petition on merits.
(4). Preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel Shri Jangid about the maintainability of this writ petition after the gross delay of ten years in challenging the impugned order of termination. He submitted that the impugned order of termination was passed on 21.2.86, which was challenged by the petitioner only on 15.1.1996 i.e. almosl after a period of ten years, therefore, this Court should dismiss this writ petition on this ground. It is unfortunate that n6ne else but the respondent University has raised this objection regarding delay in spite of several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court that the State and its agency and bodies like University etc. should not raise plea regarding delay and laches. Be that as it may. It is true that there is a delay of then years in challenging the impugned order of termination from service, but one should not overlook that almost on identical grounds the criminal case was also filed against the original petitioner Ram Chandra. Unfortunately, ten years time was taken in conclusion of such a petty case. Once the order of acquittal was passed in his favour by the competent criminal court then obviously, the petitioner would approach the respondent University to reinstale him in service in view of the finding recorded by the competent criminal court. Before approaching this Courl, he made as many as three representations dated 14.12.1994, 22.3.95 and 23.8.95. First two representations were not at all replied. After the third and last representation was made on 23.8.95, the University woke up from slumber after Ihe period of three months and at last decided to reply all the representations and accordingly on 11.11.1995 the University informed the petitioner in a most cursory manner that his request to lake him back in service cannot be accepted. When the respondent University itself look one year in answering the first representation then does it lie good in the mouth of University to raise this plea regarding delay. It may be stated that by way of this writ petition not only the termination order is challenged, but subsequent order at Annex. 3 dated 11.11.1995 turning down the representations is also challenged. Under the circumstances, though there is a delay of ten years in challenging the impugned order of termination, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the pan of petitioner in challenging the same before this Court. Hence, first preliminary objection regarding delay must be rejected and it is rejected.
(5). Mr. Jangid then raised second preliminary objection regarding enquiry. He submitted that independent enquiry was held by the Syndicate and after recording the statement of Ram Chandra, the order of termination was passed, which cannot be interfered by this Court. No doubt, it it true that it was the decision of the Syndicate to terminate the services of original pelitioner Ram Chandra, but the said decision of Ihe Syndicate was not all in accordance with law. Merely issuing notice to Ihe petitioner and after considering his reply and statement the services of original petilioner could not have been terminated. The deceased Ram Chandra was in service of the respondent University since 3.6.63 and in such manner his services could not have been terminated after 23 long years of service. There should have been regular enquiry in the matter. The impugned order at Annex.4 is lotally a non-speaking order. We do not know what was the defence of the original petitioner and what waived with the Syndicate in arriving at Ihis decision lo terminate the services of original petitioner.
(6). Under the circumstances, it was rightly submitted by the learned counsel Shri Salil Trivedi for the petitioners that the impugned order of termination was completely a non-speaking order, therefore, it was liable to be quashed and set aside.
(7). Once the competent criminal court acquilted the deceased accused for the almost identical charges levelled against him then it was not open to the respondent University to turn down his representalions in one line that his request cannot be accepted. Thus, the decision taken by Ihe respondent Universily at Annex. 3 was also bad.
(8). In view of the above discussion, mere is no option for this Court but to allow this petition and accordingly this petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination dated 21.2.86 is hereby quashed and set aside. Similarly, the order dated 11.11.1995 (Anex. 3) turning down the representations of the original petitioner in a most laconic manner is also quashed and set aside.
(9). The next question is what relief is to be given in the matter. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the writ petition, Ihe original pelilioner Ram Chandra had died on 1.4.1997, therefore, while selling aside the order of termination no order regarding reinstatement can be passed. However, once it is declared lhat the impugned order of termination at Annex. 4 is bad in law and it is quashed then respondent University had to give alt other benefits of service to the present petitioners, who are legal representatives of original petitioner Ram Chandra. Accordingly, the respondent University is directed to pay the arrears of salary from the date of termination till he died i.e. on 1.4.1997 to the legal representatives – present petilioners of deceased original petitioner Ram Chandra within three months from today. It should also release the family pension in favour of widow or whosoever is nominated by deceased Ram Chandra within three months from today.