IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 359 of 2004 (S/B) Prof. Vishnu Sahai, S/o Late Parmatma Sahai, R/o Balrampur House, District Nainital. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The University of Kumaon, District Nainital through its Registrar. 2. The Vice Chancellor, University of Kumaon, District Nainital. 3. The Executive Council, University of Kumaon, District Nainital. 4. The Disciplinary Committee, University of Kumaon, District Nainital. ………. Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Cyriac Joseph, C.J. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. When this case came up for hearing on 23rd April, 2005 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials placed on record, this Court prima facie took the view that the decision of the University to terminate the service of the petitioner requires reconsideration. Learned counsel for the University sought and was granted time to ascertain whether the respondents are willing to re-examine the matter and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Today, Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the University submitted that he had discussed the matter with the authorities of the University and that the University is willing to allow the petitioner’s request to permit him to voluntarily retire from service w.e.f. the date from which his service was terminated. Learned counsel also submitted that the University is willing to pay the salary 2 of the petitioner for the period he was kept under suspension and also to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner as per the rules. 2. After consulting the petitioner who is present in Court, Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to accept the above offer of the University and that the writ petition can be disposed of accordingly. 3. In the light of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: i. Annexure III Order dated 01.11.2004 passed by the second respondent Vice Chancellor is quashed. ii. The petitioner shall stand voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 01.11.2004. iii. The petitioner shall be paid by the respondents salary for the period he was kept under suspension. iv. Since the learned counsel for the University admitted that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is applicable to the respondent University also, the petitioner shall be paid all his retirement benefits as per rules on the basis that he voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 01.11.2004. v. It is made clear that this case was not decided on merits and that the above orders were passed by consent of the parties. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Cyriac Joseph, C.J.) 02.05.2005 02.05.2005 G