Allahabad High Court
Dr. Jonnada Ananda Vara Rpasada Rao vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 July, 2010
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Kashi Nath Pandey
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37340 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dr. Jonnada Ananda Vara Rpasada Rao Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Nisheeth Yadav,C.B. Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.
Heard Shri C.B. Yadav, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nisheeth Yadav for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent no. 1. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for respondent no.
2. Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sunita Agrawal appears for respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
While serving as Reader in Department of Biotechnology, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur the petitioner had applied for extraordinary leave for the period from 2.11.2004 to 1.11.2006. The Executive Council sanctioned the leave for two- year contract with Ministry of Education, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Before the period of leave came to an end the petitioner applied on 1.9.2006 for grant of three months paternity leave from 1.11.2006 with an assurance that he will resume duties on 1.12.2006. The narration of facts in paragraph 4 of the charge sheet, which has been served upon the petitioner, state as follows:-
"4. While serving at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur you Dr. Rao, applied for, and was sanctioned, Extraordinary Leave by the Executive Council for the period 02.11.2004 to 01.11.2006 with a rider that the decision of the Executive Council in this regard shall be binding upon you. However, you Dr. Rao again submitted an application for grant of 3 months paternity leave which was refused by the Executive Council. You Dr. Rao again submitted an application for leave for the period 16.10.2007 to 01.07.2008 which was also refused by the Executive Council. However, you Dr. Rao unauthorizedly remained absent from duties and for the first time appeared before the then Vice Chancellor of the University on 31.10.2007 and made request that you may be permitted to join the post. Thus you Dr. Rao unauthorizedly absented yourself from duties and did not join the post immediately after the expiry of the Extraordinary Leave as sanctioned by the Executive Council. The said act of yours amounts to serious misconduct on your part as contemplated under Statute 16.04 of the 1st Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur-1977."
Earlier petitioner's services were terminated by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 5.12.2008. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 65975 of 2008. This Court quashed the termination order on 1.9.2009 and the writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to reconsider the matter and take necessary steps strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner was again suspended by the Executive Council of the University on 18.12.2009. The petitioner filed a second Writ Petition No. 55579 of 2009 in which the suspension order was quashed on 18.12.2009 on the ground that under the Statutes of the University the suspension could only be directed by Executive Council only on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee. The Executive Council had appointed a Disciplinary Committee and taken a decision to suspend the petitioner on the same day on 8.10.2009. This Court, while setting aside the suspension order dated 13.10.2009, left it open for the Executive Council to take a fresh decision after recommendation is received in accordance with the first Statute of the Gorakhpur University. In the third Writ Petition No. 27075 of 2010 filed by the petitioner he prayed for quashing the constitution of the Committee for holding disciplinary enquiry against him by the decision of the Executive Council taken on 8.10.2009 and subsequently confirmed on 6.4.2010, and for payment of salary and other allowances. The Court was not prima facie inclined to call for reply for prayer no.
1. The counter affidavit was called on 13.5.2010 only to consider prayer nos. 2 and 3. The third writ petition is still pending.
Now by this fourth writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of suspension dated 18.6.2010 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University as well as the decision of the Executive Council dated 15.6.2010. He has also prayed for directions commanding the respondents not to give effect of the decision of the Executive Council and the order of suspension.
We are of the opinion that the challenge to the disciplinary proceedings, on the grounds on which the petitioner has been placed under suspension, is still subject matter of the third writ petition, and thus this fourth writ petition challenging the suspension order, which is a step in aid of the disciplinary enquiry, is not maintainable. In any case now since the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee appointed by the Executive Council, we do not propose to interfere in this fourth writ petition.
Before parting of the matter we may add that the petitioner has not explained his absence without sanction of leave, in the writ petition of the period from 1.11.2006 to 31.10.2007. He had applied for paternity leave and assured to join on 1.2.2007. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to what happened thereafter; the date, when he came back to India and the circumstances, under which he could not report for joining in the University upto 31.10.2007. These matters still are subject matter of departmental enquiry, in which petitioner will get an opportunity to defend himself.
The writ petition is dismissed with clarification, that any observations made in this judgment, relevant only for suspension of the petitioner, shall not prejudice nor will be relied upon by the Disciplinary Committee, or the University authorities in the disciplinary proceedings.
Order Date :- 1.7.2010 RKP