Chattisgarh High Court
Kaushal Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2021
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on:10.06.2021
Order delivered on:28.06.2021
Writ Petition (S) No.4035 of 2007
1. Kaushal Chandrakar, son of Shri Harakh Ram Chandrakar,
aged about 36 years.
2. Khamman Lal Chandrakar, son of Shri Bishat Lal
Chandrakar, aged about 43 years.
3. Ramnarayan Chandrakar, son of Shri Nathu Ram
Chandrakar, aged about 58 years.
4. Satbir Singh, son of Shri Har Dutt Singh, aged about
35 years.
5. Smt.Bhuneshwari Shukla, wife of Om Kumar Shukla, aged
about 36 years.
6. Ku.Renuka Sharma, daughter of Shri Ram Prasad Sharma,
aged about 29 years.
7. Ashish Borkewar, son of Shri D.R. Borkewar, aged about
32 years.
8. Rajeshwar Chandrakar, son of Shri Raghunath Prasad
Chandrakar, aged about 26 years.
9. Dr.Jeevan Lal Chandrakar, son of Shri Dau Lal
Chandrakar, aged about 30 years.
All are working as Assistant Professor at Shantri Bai
Arts, Commerce & Science College, Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund (CG)
Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher
Education, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (CG)
2. The ViceChancellor, Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla
University, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (CG)
3. Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce and Science College,
through its President/Director, Shantri Bai Arts,
Commerce & Science College, Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund (CG)
4. Principal, Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce & Science
College, Mahasamund, DistrictMahasamund (CG)
5. Chhattisgarh Chandrahu Shikshan Samiti, Mahasamund
Respondents
And Writ Petition (S) No.2883 of 2010
1. Kaushal Chandrakar, S/o Shri Harakh Ram Chandrakar, aged about 38 years.
2. Khamman Lal Chandrakar, S/o Shri Bishat Lal Chandrakar, aged about 45 years.
2
3. Ramnarayan Chandrakar, S/o Shri Rathu Ram Chandrakar, aged about 60 years.
4. Satbir Singh, S/o. Shri Har Dutt Singh, aged about 37 years.
5. Smt.Bhuneshwari Shukla, W/o Om Kumar Shukla, aged about 38 years.
6. Ku.Renuka Sharma, D/o Shri Ram Prasad Sharma, aged about 31 years.
7. Ashish Borkewar, S/o. Shri D.R. Borkewar, aged about 34 years.
8. Rajeshwar Chandrakar, S/o. Shri Raghunath Prasad Chandrakar, aged about 28 years.
9. Dr.Jeevan Lal Chandrakar, S/o. Shri Dau Lal Chandrakar, aged about 32 years.
All are Assistant Professor at Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce & Science College, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) Petitioners Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (CG)
2. The ViceChancellor, Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (CG)
3. Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce and Science College, through its President/Director, Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce & Science College, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG)
4. Principal, Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce & Science College, Mahasamund, DistrictMahasamund (CG)
5. Chhattisgarh Chandrahu Shikshan Samiti, Mahasamund Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 /State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A. For Respondent NO.2 : Mr.Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Res.No.3 to 5 : Mr.J.A.Lohani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal C.A.V. Order
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, they were clubbed and heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners herein calls in question legality, 3 validity and correctness of the order dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P1) by which their services have been terminated by respondents No.3 and 4 from the post of Assistant Professor.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on vacant post of Assistant Professor by respondent No.3/College after due approval of respondent No.2University in accordance with Statute No.28 promulgated by Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University and thereafter they were appointed on 19.9.2005. It is further case of the petitioners that since they were already working on the post of Assistant Professor, they were exempted from undergoing period of probation vide order dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure P4) and thereafter they were appointed on 19.9.2005, but they were stopped working from December, 2005 and ultimately they filed writ petition being Writ Petition No.291/2007 for salary and thereafter again they were required to file amended writ petition (S) NO.4035/2007. In that writ petition, the order of termination dated 3.11.2006 was filed by the respondents while filing the reply, then they came to know about their termination and that order has been impugned in Writ Petition (S) No.2883/2010. Since the order of termination dated 3.11.2006 is main issue, facts narrated in Writ Petition (S) No.2883/2010 are taken for consideration.
4
4. Return has been filed by respondent No.3 opposing the avermnets made in the writ petitions and specifically pleaded that the petitioners' work was not found satisfactorily and they were stopped teaching work in the college and pursuant to which, they were served with the notice dated 3.9.2006 and 6.10.2006 and thereafter the Governing Body of respondent No.5 has taken a decision on 16.10.2006 and ultimately, the impugned order dated 03.11.2006 terminating the services of the petitioners has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law.
5. Mr.Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that though the petitioners were duly appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in accordance with Rule 28 of the Statute promulgated by Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University, but they were not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before terminating their services what has been provided in Rule 28 and 29 of the Statute No.28. Even if they are taken to be Assistant Professor on probation, then Statute No.28 is required to be complied with and salary in lieu of notices ought to have been given to them. He would further submit that since they have been terminated finding them guilty of misconduct and it is stigmatic / punitive, therefore, opportunity of hearing was necessary. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme 5 Court in the matter of Dr.Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Ors.1, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr.J.A.Lohani, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 would submit that the petitioners stopped teaching work in the College and pursuant to which, they were served with two notices dated 3.9.2006 and 6.10.2006 and thereafter Governing Body considered the matter on 16.10.2006 and thereafter the impugned order dated 03.11.2006 terminating the services of the petitioners has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
7. Mr.Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2 University, would submit that the petitioners are not sought any relief against University, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. However, he would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Marathwada Univesristy v. Sheshrao Balwantrao Chavan2 and submit that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and no other manner. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Shardindu3 in which it has been 1 2020(12) SCC 426 2 AIR 1989 SC 1582 3 (2007) 6 SCC 276 6 categorically held that if procedure for termination of appointment exists in the statutory provisions, termination can be done only according to those provisions and none else. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of V.P.Ahuja v. State of Punjab4 wherein it has been categorically held that a probationer like a temporary servant is entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without complying with the principles of natural justice.
8. Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State, would support the stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No.2.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
10. Selection of the petitioners except petitioners No.3 and 6 namely Ramnarayan Chandrakar and Ku.Renuka Sharma for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor was approved by respondent No.2University on 12.5.2005 (Annexure P2) and accordingly, the respondentUniversity appointed them on the post of Assistant Professor by order dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure P3) and on 19.9.2005 (Annexure P4) the respondentCollege informed to the University that since the petitioners so appointed except 4 2000(3) SCC 239 7 petitioners No.3 and 6 are already working in their College as Assistant Professor, therefore, they are exempted from undergoing probation, but immediately thereafter on 18.1.2007 (Annexure P5) the petitioners made a complaint before the respondentUniversity that they are not being given pay scale and not being allowed to serve the college leading to filing of Writ Petition NO.291/2007 in respect to denial of pay scale by the respondentCollege, in which this Court on 19.1.2007 directed the Vice Chancellor of the respondentUniversity to decide the representation in accordance with law, which the petitioners made representation to the Vice Chancellor, but noncompliance of order was subject matter of Contempt Petition No.110/2007 before this Court and thereafter, on 11.6.2007 the Vice Chancellor of respondent No.2University passed an order dated 11.6.2007, which has been called in question in WPS No.4035/2007. Thereafter, services of the petitioners have been terminated by respondents No.3 and 4 by order dated 3.11.2006 (Annexure P1) on the basis of meeting of Governing Body dated 16.10.2006, which has been called in question in WPS No.2883/2010.
11. The main contention of the petitioners is that Statute No.28 of the respondentUniversity has not been followed while terminating their services and even order is punitive in nature, it is stigmatic, therefore, regular 8 departmental enquiry ought to have been conducted before terminating their services.
12. It is not in dispute that selection of the petitioners except 3 & 6 was approved by the respondentUniversity on 11.5.2005 and duly communicated by the University to the respondentCollege on 12.5.2005 (Annexure P2) and thereafter they were appointed on 19.9.2005 vide Annexure P3 and vide Annexure P4 respondentCollege itself informed that these appointed Assistant Professors / petitioners are already working, therefore, they are exempted from undergoing probation, but thereafter it appears that dispute arose between the parties leading to issuance of notice by respondents NO.3 and 4 on 6.10.2006 (Annexure R3/41) and the petitioners were given 3 days time to explain as to why they are absent from their duty, failing which, necessary action will be followed and thereafter, the Governing body submitted a note on 16.10.2006 (page12) in which certain charges were levelled against the petitioners for act of indiscipline and acting irresponsibly, which states as under: ekuuh; v/;{k egksn; th izca/kdh; lfefr ds lnL;
fnukad 16@10@2006 'kkarhckbZ dyk] okf.kT; ,oa foKku egkfo|ky; egkleqUn }kjk izca/kdh; lehfr dh cSBd "egkfo|ky; es ifjfu;e&28 ds varxZr fu;qDr lgk;d izk/;kidksa dh egkfo| ky; ds izfr vuq'kklughurk ,oa muds nkf;Roghurk ds laca/k esa j[kh xbZ gSA egksn;] 9 1- egkfo|ky; xr~ o"kZ twu 2005 esa ifjfu;e&28 varxZr lHkh lgk;d izk/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr dh xbZ FkhA xr~ o"kZ gh egkfo|ky; esa Nk= la[;k dkQh de gksus ds dkj.k ,oa foxr nks o"kksZ ls yxkrkj Nk= la[;k dkQh de gksus ds dkj.k ,oa foxr nks o"kksZ ls yxkrkj ?kkVs dk Hkkj ogu djus ds dkj.k lfefr }kjk egkfo|ky; can djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA ysfdu egkfo|ky; ds lgk;d izk/;kidksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ds fuosnu djus ij iqu% egkfo|ky; lapkfyr fd;k x;kA lkFk gh ,d ekSf[kd vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij fd pwafd egkfo|ky; osru iznk; djus esa vleFkZ gSA vr% 'kklu }kjk iks"kd vuqnku izkIr gksus dh fLFkfr esa gh osru vkgfjr fd;k tk;sxkA 2- egkfo|ky; ds lgk;d izk/;kidksa }kjk fnukad 25@08@2006 ls d{kk esa v/;kiu dk;Z can dj fn;k x;k gS bldh fdlh Hkh izdkj dh fyf[kr lwpuk egkfo|ky; iz'kklu@lfefr dks ugha nh xbZ gSA 3- lHkh lgk;d izk/;kidksa ,oa deZpkjh fnukad 02@09@2006 ls egkfo|ky; ls vuqifLFkr gSA 4- egkfo|ky; LVkQ Jh ds-,y-pUnzkdj ls ikl Nk=o`fRr izHkkj gS] muds }kjk Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks vHkh rd xr o"kZ dh Nk=o`fRr dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugh fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh orZeku es Nk=o`fRr QkeZ Hkjokus dh vkSipkfjdrk;sa gh iw.kZ dh xbZ gSA 5- Jh lrohj lywtk ds ikl ijh{kk izHkkj gSA ijh{kk lapkyu ls lacaf/kr vk;&O;; jkf'k dk C;kSjk muds ikl gS vkSj os bl ckjs esa lwpuk nsus ls badkj djrs gSA 6- Jh dkS'ky panzkdj tks Nk=la?k izHkkjh gSa] ysfdu vc rd muds }kjk 'kklu ds vkns'kkuqlkj pquko izfdz;k dks Ikw.kZ djus dh ftEesnkjh dk fuoZgu ugh fd;k x;k gSA 7- mijksDr fcUnqvksa dh lwpuk ds vfrfjDr dqN lgk;d izk/;kid ftuesa loZizFke~& 1- MkW- thou Ykky pUnzkdj & 'kklu }kjk lafonk lgk;d izk/;kid ds :i esa ckxckgjk egkfo|ky; esa inLFk gS] vRk% ,d deZpkjh dk nks LFkkuksa ij dk;Z djuk ifjfu;e&28 dk mYya?ku gSA 2- Jh vk'kh"k cksVdsokj & uoksn; fo|ky; cklwj "narsokM+k" esa dk;Zjr~ gSA 3- Jh jkts'oj pUnzkdj & ';ke fo|k eafnj egkleqUn esa dk;Zjr gSA 4- Jh dkS'ky pUnzdkj & "xqM 'ksQMZ Ldwy egkleqUn" esa dk;Zjr gSA lkFk gh Jh lrohj flax lywtk] Jh dkS'ky pUnzdkj] Jh jkts'oj pUnzkdj] dq- js.kqdk 'kekZ }kjk O;fDrxr :i ls V~;w'ku dk;Z Hkh fd;k tkrk gSA tks fd ifjfu;e&28 ds fu;eksa dk Li"V mYya?ku gSA 8- mijksDr fcUnqvksa ds lanHkZ esa mUgs le;≤ ij lwpuk Hkh tkjh fd;k x;k ysfdu muds }kjk lwpuk ysus ls badkj fd;k x;k ,oa lkFk gh Li"Vhdj.k nsus ls badlj fd;k x;kA 9- pqfa d LVkQ }kjk viuh leL;kvksa ds laca/k esa lfefr dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dh fyf[kr lwpuk ugha nh xbZ] ysfdu buds }kjk dysDVj egkluqUn] dqy lfpo ia- jfo'kadj fo'o fo|ky; jk;iqj] midqy lfpo ia- jfo'kadj fo'o fo|ky; jk;iqj] vk;qDr mPp f'k{kk foHkkx jk;iqj esa lfefr ds fo:) fyf[kr f'kdk;r dh xbZ bl laca/k es midqylfpo fo'ofo|ky; jk;iqj }kjk egkfo|ky; dks Li"Vhdj.k vkns'k tkjh fd;k x; gSA 10 10- LVkQ }kjk lkekU; iz'kklu ds vkns'k dh vogsyuk dh xbZA egksn; pqfa d ifjfu;e&28 ds varxZr fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa }kjk egkfo|ky; ds dk;kZs ds izfr vuq'kklughurk ,oa vius drZO;ksa] nkf;Roksa ds izfr ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gS] ftlls Nk=fgr izHkkfor gqvk gS] vkSj buds dk;Z ls ifjfu;e&28 ds fu;eksa dk mYya?ku gqvk gS] vr% bl laca/k esa mfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq izca/kdh; lehfr ds leLr lnL;ksa dks lwuukFkZ izLrqrA lgh@& lfpo NRrhlx<+ pUnzukgw f'k{k.k lfefr egkleqUn ¼N-x-½
13. The aforesaid note prepared by the Secretary of respondent No.5 would show that certain charges of indiscipline and acting negligently amounting to misconduct and violation of Statute No.28 was levelled. Note placed before the Governing Body of respondent No.5 was considered on its meeting dated 16.10.2006 and in that meeting, it was resolved to terminate the services of the petitioners and relying upon the decision taken in the meeting dated 16.10.2006, the services of the petitioners have been terminated by impugned order dated 03.11.2006 passed by respondents No.3 to 5.
14. Now, the question is whether the order of termination (Annexure P1) is in accordance with law ?
15. In this regard, it would be appropriate to notice clause 28 and 29 of the Statute No.28 which state as under: "28. The service of a teacher who is appointed on probation can be terminated during or at the end of the period of probation, if his work is not found to be satisfactory by communicating to the teacher, the intention of the Governing 11 Body not to continue him and giving him/her one calendar month's notice in writing or by paying him/her one month's salary in lieu of the notice. Such notice shall not include the summer vacation or any part thereof and the teacher if he/she has been in service for more than three months during the academic session shall be entitled to salary for the ensuing summer vacation in the same proportion as the period of service bears to the total period in the academic session. The teacher may, like wise terminate his/her appointment before the expiry of the period of probation by giving one calendar month's notice in writing to the Governing Body or paying a sum equal to one month's salary in lieu of the notice.
29. (1) The service of a teacher (other than one appointed on temporary or parttime basis or on probation) shall not be terminated after confirmation except on the following grounds and without the approval of the Executive Council:
(i) Misconduct including wilful neglect of duty.
(ii) Breach of the terms of the contract.
(iii) Physical or mental unfitness.
(iv) Incompetence provided that the plea of incompetence shall not be used against a teacher after two years of his/her confirmation:
(v) Abolition of the post with the prior approval of the Executive Council.
Provided that termination of service on any ground following under (i) to (iv) above shall not be ordered without holding an inquiry in which the teacher is given a statement of charges against him/her and is afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself/herself.
Provided also that action to terminate the service of a teacher on the ground of physical or mental unfitness shall not be taken except on the basis of a report of a Medical Board to be appointed by the Governing Body.
(2) Except where the services of a teacher 12 are terminated on the ground of misconduct including neglect of duty or breach of the terms of the contract, neither the Governing Body nor the teacher shall terminate the agreement except by giving to the other party three calendar month's notice or by paying to the other party a sum equal to thrice the monthly salary which the teacher concerned is then earning. The period of notice shall not include the summer vacation or any part thereof."
16. In the matter of Shardindu (supra) the Supreme Court has held that if procedure for termination of appointment exists in the statutory provisions, termination can be done only in accordance with the provisions and none else.
17. Likewise, in the matter of V.P.Ahuja (supra) the Supreme Court has held that a probationer like a temporary servant is entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without complying with the principles of natural justice.
18. Though the petitioners were appointed on 19.9.2005 (Annexure P3) and on the same day vide Annexure P4, the College itself has informed to the University that they are working on regular basis and therefore, they are exempted from requirement of undergoing probation. However, considering the petitioners to be probationer on the date of termination i.e. on 3.11.2006, the Statute No.28 as noticed hereinabove clearly provides that The service of a teacher who is appointed on 13 probation can be terminated during or at the end of the period of probation, if his work is not found to be satisfactory by communicating to the teacher, the intention of the Governing Body not to continue him and giving him/her one calendar month's notice in writing or by paying him/her one month's salary in lieu of the notice. Even if he/she is probationer, giving one calendar month's notice is absolutely necessary and without serving one calender month's notice, services of the teacher could not have been terminated. But in the instant case, clause 28 of Statute No.28 has not been followed while terminating the services of the petitioners except petitioners No.3 and 6 as neither one month's notice was given nor one month's salary in lieu of notice was paid to the petitioners.
19. A careful perusal of Annexure R3/41 and 2 would show that serious allegations of indiscipline and acting irresponsibly were charged against the petitioners, which is apparent from a note placed before the Governing body, which has already been noticed in paragraph 12 of this order. The question would be whether the impugned order is termination simpliciter or it is termination punitive or exfacie stigmatic.
20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Dr.Vijaykumaran (supra) has clearly held that material which amounts 14 to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be contained in "any document referred to in the termination order". It was further held that such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex facie stigmatic order of termination relying upon in its earlier judgments i.e. Indra Pal Gupta v. Model Inter College5, Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences6 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences7 their Lordships laid down the test to determine whether the order of termination is simpliciter or punitive and held as under: "10. In Pavanendra Narayan Sharma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Science (supra), the Court observed thus: SCC p. 528, para 21) "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.
11. In the present case, all the three elements are attracted, as a result of which it must follow that the stated order is ex facie stigmatic and punitive. Such an order could be 5 (1984) 3 SCC 384 6 (1999) 3 SCC 60 7 (2002) 1 SCC 520 15 issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a regular inquiry as per the service rules. As a matter of fact, the Internal Complaints Committee had recommended to proceed against the appellant appropriately but the Executive Council proceeded under the mistaken belief that in terms of Clause 7 of the contract, it was open to the Executive Council to terminate the services of the appellant without a formal regular inquiry as per the service rules. Indisputably, in the present case, the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted in reference to the complaints received from the girl students about the alleged misconduct committed by the appellant, which allegations were duly inquired into in a formal inquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant and culminated with the report recording finding against the appellant with recommendation to proceed against him."
21. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pavanendra Narayan Sharma (supra) followed in Dr.Vijaykumaran C.P.V. (supra), it is quite vivid that though a note alleging certain acts of indiscipline and irresponsible act of the petitioners amounting to misconduct was placed before respondent No.5 by the Secretary of the Society on 16.10.2006 and thereafter the impugned order dated 03.11.2006 terminating the services of the petitioners came to be passed, but nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that whether prior to termination of the petitioners except petitioners No.3 and 6, a fullscale formal enquiry into allegations involving misconduct as mentioned in agenda dated 16.10.2006 was conducted which culminated in a finding of guilt of the petitioners. The 16 petitioners have failed to bring material on record that pursuant to note dated 16.10.2006 prepared by Secretary of respondent No.5 or before placing a note before Governing Body any fullscale formal enquiry into allegations involving misconduct was conducted, which resulted into guilt of the petitioners.
22. In the matter of Pavanendra Narayan Sharma (supra), their Lordships have clearly held that if any of the three factors is missing, order of termination cannot be held to be punitive or stigmatic as in the instant case, it has not been shown that any fullscale formal enquiry was conducted into allegations as contained in note dated 16.10.2006 and it resulted in guilt of the petitioners, as such, all three ingredients are missing for holding the impugned order of termination to be punitive or stigmatic. Merely because a note has been prepared and placed by Secretary of respondent No.5 before the Governing Body alleging certain act of misconduct upon the petitioners and eventually the petitioners are placed under termination, therefore, it cannot be concluded that order is punitive or stigmatic, as such, argument that order is stigmatic deserves to be rejected.
23. As a fallout and consequence of the abovestated discussion, the order of termination dated 03.11.2006 is held to be not stigmatic or punitive, but it is a 17 termination simpliciter, but it is violative of clause 28 of the Statute No.28 of Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University as neither one month's notice was given nor in lieu of notice one month's salary was given. Since the order of termination was termination simpliciter, though in violation of clause 28 of the Statute No.28, as such, the order of termination cannot be said to be vitiated on account of noncompliance of clause 28 as clause 28 does not require showcause notice to be issued before dispensing with services of probation along with reasons. Therefore, the order of termination dated 03.11.2006 is held to be termination simpliciter without any stigma. However, the petitioners except petitioner No.3 Ramnarayan Chandrakar and petitioner No.6Ku.Renuka Sharma will be entitled for one month's salary in lieu of notice along with 9% interest from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. The petitioners are at liberty to make a representation within 30 days for payment of their salary as claimed in Writ Petition (S) No.4035 of 2017, which will be considered and decided by respondents No.3 to 5 within next 45 days.
24. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/