Pstitioners 1. “f“ Chandrakumér Gendele Sfo Shri Narendra Kumar Gendele aged about 41 years r/o village Churbhatts, Post Pathariya Tehsil Mungali Distt. Bilaspur é; 113-“ mg”y A 0 01 Kamalnarayan Shukla .s/ o Shri Neelkanth Shukla aged about 33 years r/o Near Dr. Ladikar’s Hospital, New Bus Stand, Karbala Road, Bilaspur CO Shahid Khan Khokhar, s/o Shri M.L.K.Khokhar aged about 32 yrs r/o Opposite Mission Hospital, Bilaspur Prashant Kumar Mishra s/o Shri S.K. Mishra aged about 25yrs r/o New Sarkanda, Bangalipara, Chakravorty Chal, Gali No.6, Bilaspur. '\ IN THE COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wRIT pETITION No.23 1/2002 S.Ejaj Ali s/o Shri S. Manzoor Ali aged about 31 yrs r/o Massanganj near Dr. Shrivastav’s house, Bilaspur. U! 1V.“ Shiv Kumar Kaushik s/o Shri Bodhiram Koushik aged about 37yrs r/o village Rahangi post Chakarb hata camp distt. Bilaspur. VERSUS Respondents l. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidhayalay through Re gistrar, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidhaylay, Bilaspur 10 Registrar Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalay, Bilaspur. wry/f. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 I 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARY, MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION: Particulars of the Petitioners: As per cause title. above. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITION: Respondent-University by Shri Manindra Shrivastava, hf Advocate. With the consent ofthe panies the matter is heard finally. This order shall dispose of W.P.No. 232/2002,233/2002 and 234/2002. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dt. 21.1.2002 whereby his services have been terminated by the Registrar/of the University as per the orders passed by the Vi:e—Chancellor on the ground that the Vice Chancellor passed the order on 20.1.2002 and as such their services are terminated with immediate eEect. 't ioners submits that names were called from ii'om the employees of the University. The petitioners were also called for ten test and interview. The petitioners were 't ide order dated 24.12.2001. They gave their joining report on 15.1.2002 and ereatter their services have been terminated by the impugred order dt. 21.1. 002. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, before p sing the impugned order no notice was given 3. Learned counsel for the p - the employment exchange as well duly selected and were appointed \ \ and no enquiry was conducted. \ lute W W- P‘ Wm MO- 3W) ..................................... 31$“ 233 §a$ 23/1 G, r LwL §@ W 200 .............................................. E a ................................................ mm mxfa’a mmmw ' WWW wrW-gn a; W W 15.3.2002 Petitioners by Shri Dhirendra Mishra, Advocate with Shri Praveen Das, Advocate. ‘ . 7 MH.EO,~N wagqmam : gm w \v £~¢c 8:33 , 9&3. Ea i Edmuqma gg‘mm Ewg a. “Egan gumos o mogmoam wamwosaoam EZa 9am90W >E§n=a w\r€Eo:wm co$a39in mg a\4\ 8» aw gww§§§~w gggdngg www§§§$a wm£§mmmm£g4§g §%$~m\m\8~wL A§m$ wiwq§£4 §§§W§m§g mgmuqwgwZuN g§§w§g$ §§§Awwd§aw gag“: . m UonagaaEEwxEn WE rmm ~63. a N a ooBEw5$ Ewma 3‘9 BQEXQ gamiAmm REE E €Eowa Wm£93ma5»on wsmombo0=£mo= omwvwomsgoa gab a: 38a. § mmammmnoa 8 wags,“ %%§%§§, §®§§§§w§% §§§§gimagh @ggggadwgggwg §a$§§§§§maW §§§§$§%§&W E. %&§§§z&s%&§m m££3$§mgwm£§a§§m §E§%@M%m§§ &§g%i%@m%§ gr g owa5 gmonmwmos $5 $8 iimwag %§§ ( a9 3 3a imam, WE, Wm WWW tun—W v” . ..................................... “200 .............................................. my ................................................ mama X1LHC.22 maintain at all times absolute irtegn'ty and devotion to duty and do nothing‘ whlch Is unbecomlng of a govemment servant No government sewant shall 1n y the performance of h1s omelal duties or 1n the exerc1se of power conferred on ‘ hlm act othemlse than 1n hls beg duectron of lns oEmal supenor The posrtron of Vice Chancellor and the status, which he enjoys, is l certainly a key position in any Smte. He is not supposed to mortgage his own r discretiom volition and decision- judgnent except when he 1s actmg under the J2 l .y- r kw l o: aking authority and be prepared to. give way i or be pushed back or pressed ah ad at the behest of anyone for canying out 3 commands having no sanctity in l we He has to act in accordance with law. He , l I l has to perform his duties and exe ise powers conferred on him as per his own ’ l best judgnent and not at the dictat 0f some union employees. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that such action is ’ arbitrary and no justifiable gro d at all has been mentioned. If certain i gievances were made by the om e bearers of the Association they are to be i enquired into and the appointment ould not be cancelled merely by asking. No i document as such is there to sho that any objection in writing was placed. Even if, any objection is raised, th authorities should have acted in accordance with law. The Apex Court in the ase of Abdul Karim and Others e Vs —- State of‘Kamataka and Others reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 710 has [dew L} ‘» 1 l i. l l l i I i ; l 1 held that the authorities should not act under pressure but they have to act strictly in accordance with law. 'Ihe persons acting under pressure one way or .is’ Lordship Hon’ble Justice Y.K.Sabharwal 1s follows: “The applicatignr‘and order under action by overzealous persons without proper consideration of the relevantmaterial though l motive. It does not appearthat anybody lected govemments give an impression to the the other do render no service. H observed in the judgment (supra) Section 321 is a result of panic re understanding of the problem and they may not have any persona considered that if democratically e citizens of this country of being +Awbreakers, would it not breed contempt for law; would it not invite citizens t to anarchy. The Govemments ha\ maintenance of law and order and anarchy. 9. In the instant case it is not of appointment was committed. I ground that other persons could cause has not been issued by thr / natural justice. 3 become a law onto themselves. It may lead 'e to consider and balance the choice between mentioned that any irregularity in the process nfacL the termination has been ordered on the not be regularized and even notice to show : authorities, which violates the principles of {tilt} ‘éfrait 3am,m“rm,fm ané‘vr W @ ‘ ‘ m 200 my mm $$ . WW§WW mm$m %Wm x Court in the case of Shrawan Kun Others reported in AIR 1991 Supt opportunity of hearing should have ll. Shri Dhirendra Mishra, lea upon a Apex Court decision in the M. Sujatha and Others rgported i which it is held that the principles who was likely to be adversely a1 opportunity of being heard. l2. Shn' Dhirendra Mishra spe‘ document Annexure R/l which is a 3—H W a W W § 24/12/2001 d We Wc Wwfenmie‘rmmn‘ lar Jha and others — Vs — State of Bihar and eme Court 309 in which it is held that prior been given to the affected pergseri. med counsel for the petitioners also relied case of AMJS. Sushanth and others e Vs — n §2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 197 in of natural justice demanded that any person faded by the order should have been given :ifically refeired to the note of Registrar in s follows: himwmihmn 'mwmemmn %WmdWW—wn WWWWW§,WWW%WW$ WWW It Gm? W WW20/1/2002mt1%d WW$W$WW menusittws 24/12/01 d W W wmnmwm’s‘ tee afar: 6 :XI—HC.22 3a W,m, W 6K W WC.“m ‘gTi 200 a arm 2m m W m WWI af‘ga WWW €1 f3?) WEN §¥ aim m 10‘ Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of Apex 7 Wm mm w 200 mend I X1~HC-22 I £§ W. m- m3m 1m w em mm WW ” wit—Fir? % mwa‘l WWW . fw W ‘J ¥’ show cause notice was issued, no opportunity of headng was aEordsd, merely on the basis of instructions issued on a note—sheet (Annexure R/l) the petitionexs have been terminated. The action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and without following even the principles of ng£ffal justice. If any action is required to be taken, it must be only in accordance with law. The respondents have failed to bring on record any reasonable basis for terminating the services ofthe petitioners. 15. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion the impugied order dated 21.1.2002, terminating the services of the pettioners deserves to be and is hereby set aside. ‘RMR The petition is allowed with costs. U Sdl- Parties ane entitled for Coco a. Fakhruddin Judge '