IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9808 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR, S/O LATE SHIV DAYAL THAKUR, R/O D/92, P.C. COLONY, PATNA, NEAR TEMPO STAND, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DIST. PATNA . Versus 1.. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY THROUGH REGISTRAR, MAIDAN GHARHI, NEW DELHI-110068 . 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, MAIDAN GHARHI, NEW DELHI – 110068 3. THE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL SERVICES DIVISION, IGNOU, MAIDAN GHARHI, NEW DELHI – 110 068. 4. THE REGISTRAR, STUDENT REGISTRATION AND EVALUATION DIVISION, IGNOU, MAIDAN GHARHI, NEW DELHI-110068 5. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, IGNOU R.C., PATNA, 2ND FLOOR, BISCOMAUN TOWER, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA – 800 001. FOR THE PETITIONER: MR. ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY MR. BIRENDRA KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR. SANJAY KUMAR ----------- 4. 12.03.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel representing respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 who are; the Vice Chancellor, Director, Registrar and Regional Director of Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Centre, Patna and New Delhi. Counsel representing respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 submits that name of respondent No. 5 should be deleted and he should remain as party respondent as per his designation. Prayer is allowed. Name of respondent No. 5 is deleted. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 27.06.2008 contained in IG/RDS/RC/05/PIC/0535/08 whereby he has been removed 2 from his service as PIC, IGNOU, PSC, 0535/)Patna with immediate effect. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of letter dated 26.06.2008 issued by the Director, Regional Service Division, IGNOU (respondent No. 3) contained in letter No. IG/RSD/RC/05/PIC/0535/08 communicated to respondent No. 5 through e-mail that petitioner’s service has been discontinued with immediate effect and further direction has been issued to identify any other eligible person to be appointed as PIC of the PSC 0535. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as part time programme-in-charge at Programme Study Centre – 0535 at Patna on 27.12.2002 under the terms and conditions laid down in Letter No. IG/RSD/2001/3149 dated 27.12.2002. The period of his service was extended and renewed time to time. Lastly, it was renewed on 27.12.2007 which was to be continued till 31.12.2008. In between this period, an e-mail was received by respondent No. 4 sent by respondent No. 3 communicating that the petitioner’s service has been discontinued. Another letter was communicated through e-mail to respondent No. 5 giving information regarding discontinuation from petitioner’s service with immediate effect and also to appoint someone else in place of the petitioner. The impugned orders have been challenged by 3 the petitioner on the ground that it is not a termination simplicitor rather making a serious allegation against him that he has harassed a woman student on 13.06.2008 at the time of examination at the Examination Centre of New Delhi. On such allegation, his service has been discontinued with immediate effect even without giving opportunity to explain the situation or any opportunity to show cause. Making such serious aspersion, a decision should not have been taken for discontinuation of service. Counsel representing the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 who are the authorities of Indira Gandhi National Open University, has also not contradicted this point that discontinuation order has been issued without assigning any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. It is a fact that the petitioner’s service was being renewed time to time as per terms and conditions of the policy. But on the date, he was informed regarding his discontinuation from service, the period of extension was still continuing. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case such an order could not have been issued, there was probability that further extension could have been provided to the petitioner and still he would have been continued on the same post. Considering the fact that during the period of extension, making such serious allegation, petitioner has 4 been terminated from his service without following the necessary formalities, the impugned order is bad as it has been issued in violation of the natural justice and in such a situation, it was mandatory for the respondents to seek at least, an explanation from the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders contained in Annexures- 3 & 4 are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Petitioner must be allowed to join on reinstatement within one week from the date of production/communication of the order. This writ application stands allowed. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra ,J.)