Civil Appeal @ SLP @ Diary No.7063/2021
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, though served, has not
appeared. He is, thus, set ex parte. The facts of the case are as
follows:
o Respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, who was working as a
Reader in the Psychology Department of the appellant,
Chaudhary Charan Singh University1, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh, since 14.11.1990, applied for Extra Ordinary
Deepak Guglani 1 For short, “University.”
2 For short, “EOL.”
o On 25.11.2001, he made another application for a
grant/extension of EOL. Leave was granted and extended
up to 31.05.2002.
o Belatedly, respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, on
01.08.2003, again applied for EOL by seeking extension
up to 26.12.2003. No orders were passed on the said
application; leave was not extended.
o On 22.08.2005, the University sent a show-cause notice
to respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, asking him as to why
the matter should not be referred to the Executive
Council, as respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, had not
joined his post and was not undertaking his duties as a
Reader in the University.
o Vide another letter dated 22.09.2005, the University
addressed the Head of the Department (Psychology),
stating that respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, had been
continuously absent since 25.08.2000 and that there was
no provision to further extend the leave. Even
thereafter, respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, did not
join duty nor did he send any request letter stating
that he wanted to join duty.
o On the other hand, he wrote another letter on
09.02.2006, seeking an extension of leave up to
24.08.2006. He also prayed for a grant of a promotion.
o In the Executive Council’s meeting held on 04.07.2007, a
resolution was passed terminating the services of
respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh.
o On or about 17.08.2009, while respondent No. 1, Maharaj
Singh was in the United States of America, he challenged
the order of his termination before the Chancellor of
the University, that is, the Governor, State of Uttar
Pradesh, by way of a representation. This
representation came to be dismissed on 17.08.2009.
o Aggrieved, respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, filed Writ-A
No. 2450/2010 before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, which was allowed by the impugned judgment
dated 22.09.2017.
o The impugned judgment primarily records that the
University had not followed the applicable statute and
had not conducted an enquiry and, therefore, termination
of the services of respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh, was
contrary to law. Accordingly, the resolution dated
04.07.2007 passed by the Executive Council and the order
passed by the Chancellor of the University, that is, the
Governor, State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 17.08.2009, were
set aside.
Assuming that there was a lapse on the part of the University
in terminating the services of respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, on
the ground that he had abandoned his services, we feel that the
matter should have been remitted to the authorities of the
University for passing appropriate fresh orders as per law; if
necessary, after holding a disciplinary enquiry. The facts of the
case are writ large and show that respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh,
failed to report for duty and was travelling and moving around
abroad. Even today, he has not appeared before this Court, despite
service of notice. Later on, he pursued contempt proceedings
before the High Court, on account of non-compliance with its order.
During the course of the hearing, it was stated that
respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, has been paid his dues under the
Contributory Provident Fund3 Scheme, including the share of the
University.
We are not even made aware as to whether respondent no. 1,
Maharaj Singh, took up employment anywhere outside India after he
had taken EOL way back on 25.08.2000. In case respondent no. 1,
Maharaj Singh, has taken up employment outside India and is working
or has set up a business outside India, he clearly abandoned his
services with the University. We are informed that the High Court
had directed respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, to file an affidavit
in this respect, which was not filed.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, we feel that the
matter should be closed by this Court, setting aside the impugned
judgment dated 22.09.2017. At the same time, we direct that the
University shall not recover the CPF already paid to respondent No.
1, Maharaj Singh. The contempt proceedings4 pending before the
High Court will obviously come to an end and be treated as closed,
in terms of this order.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
3For short, “CPF.”
4Contempt Application (Civil) No. 512/2021
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 4978 of 2021
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the order
passed today in the connected matter, that is, Civil Appeal @ SLP @
Diary No. 7063/2021.
Proceedings in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 512/2021 will
be treated as closed.