S.S Sodhi, J.:— Termination of his services as Lecturer in English at the DAV. College, Ambala City is what the petitioner Dr. B.M Singh seeks to challenge here.

2. It was on August 12, 1968 that the petitioner, after his selection as such, was appointed Lecturer in English by the DAV. College Managing Committee, New Delhi. After his appointment, the petitioner worked at the DAV. College, Ambala City till June 1977 when he proceeded on three years leave till June 1980 to study for his Ph.D On the expiry of his leave, he rejoined the College on July 1, 1980.

3. It appears that after rejoining his duty, the petitioner was often found to be absent during the first period presumably on account of the fact that he was living at Chandigarh and travelled to Ambala everyday to attend to his duties there. When his attention was drawn to this, he started putting in leave applications for this first period on one pretext or the other. Eventually, by his letter of September 6, 1980, the petitioner applied for leave without pay from October 7, 1980 to March 31, 1981. It is the plea of the petitioner that this leave was duly sanctioned by the Principal, a fact that is specifically controverted by the respondents. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the peptitioner did not attend duty from October 7, 1980 onwards. This is what led to the petitioner being suspended from service with effect from December 4, 1980. A charge-sheet was then served upon him to which he submitted a rather long and lengthy reply covering over 180 typed pages. After considering this reply, the Managing Committee of the college appointed Justice T.K Chand, a former Judge of this Court as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner.

4. A reference to the report shows that when the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer, four Preliminary Objections were raised by him. The first being that on the expiry of three months from the date of his suspension, the charges against him stood barred by time and he was consequently entitled to be reinstated from the date of his suspension i.e December 4, 1980. This being founded upon regulation 9.3 of the Kurukshetra University Calendar which provided, “the period of suspension shall not exceed three months within which the case must be decided.” This was repelled by the Enquiry Officer holding “A careful perusal of Regulation 9.3 shows that the maximum period of suspension is three months within which the case must be decided, but if the case by reasons of its length or the difficulty in a conceivable case of procuring witness.cannot be concluded, suspension beyond 3 months cannot continue. The fact of conclusion of suspension is that the employee is entitled to claim the full salary payable to him. It cannot, however, mean that his guilt is disproved or that he is entitled to acquittal. The Principal underlying restricted period of suspension is that the employee, as a result Page: 95of prolonged suspension should not suffer on account of being deprived of the salary. But the termination of the period of his suspension does not entitle him to noming to a discharge and reinstatement as if his guilt had not been established. The inquiry may proceed on the basis of the charges served, but the intermediary or adverse consequence of suspension beyond a period of 3 months cannot earn for him absolution from his guilt, if substantiated after scrutiny lasting beyond 3 months.”

5. Objection was next sought to be taken to the Constitution of the Governing Body of the College, namely, the D.A.V College Managing Committee, New Delhi, on the ground that as required by Regulation 8 of the Kurukshetra University Calendar, it did not have two representatives of the teachers on it and, therefore, the charge-sheet and the order of suspension passed against him stood vitiated. This objection too was over-ruled by the Enquiry Officer with the observations, “The appointments of teachers in D.A.V College are made by the central body, the D.A.V College Managing Committee, New Delhi. On this body there is no representation of any teachers within contemplation of Regulation 8 of the University Calendar. At the time of such appointment when candidates are interviewed by the Central Body, the nominees of the Vice-Chancellor, the experts appointed by the University and the nominee of the D.P.I are present, besides the representatives of the Management. This issue was taken up by Dayanand College teachers Union, Hissar. The Asstt. Registrar (Colleges) informed the Secretary, of the Union vide letter No. CBT-79/75/3394 dated 15-4-1995, reproduced below:—

“Subject: Representation of teaching staff on the Governing Body of the College.

Dear Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter No. nil dated 23.1.1975 on the subject cited above and to state that your request has been considered by the Vice-Chancellor.

In this connection I am directed to inform you that the University can intervene if representation to teachers is not given on the Local Managing Committee. As the D.A.V College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi, is a Central Managing Body, it is not possible to secure representation to the teaching staff on the Central Committee.

Yours faithfully,

Assistant Registrar (Colleges)

for Registrar.”

6. There is not a single instance brought to my notice in which the legality of an appointment, suspension or dismissal of an employee of any D.A.V College has been successfully questioned on the ground that there was no representative of the teachers.

7. The third objection sought to question the suspension order passed against the petitioner, namely, whether in the circumstances of the case, he should have been suspended. The Enquiry Officer held that “strictly speaking this was not a Preliminary objection as the parties were not,” ad idem on the basis factual contentions “and further that the conflicting questions of fact cannot, in the circumstances, give rise to such objection.”

8. The fourth and last Preliminary objection was with reference to the provisions of Regulation 9.2 of the Kurukshetra University Calendar which require that a copy of the order of suspension alongwith a copy of the charge-sheet be sent to the Registrar of the University within a week of such order. According to the petitioner, this had not been done in his case. The Enquiry Officer, however, found that the requisite communication in this behalf was sent on the day the petitioner had been suspended i.e December 4, 1980, with reference No. 12471 by the D.A.V College Managing Committee.

9. It will be seen that all the Preliminary Objections raised in the enquiry were duly considered, dealt with and repelled by the Enquiry Officer. This is being emphasised for the reason that great stress had been laid by the petitioner upon the fact that he had raised these Preliminary Objections in the enquiry and he has alleged that the Enquiry Officer had, “closed the case without disposing of the Preliminary Objections.” The contrary, in fact, is what is the correct and true situation. What is more, a reading of the enquiry report would show that all the Preliminary Objections were dealt with in all their relevant aspects and, indeed, the petitioner was unable to point out any flaw or defect in the reasoning or approach of the Enquiry Officer with regard to them.

10. Turning now to the charges as framed against the petitioner and dealt with by the Enquiry Officer, the first charge reads as under:

“The Principal, D.A.V Collegle, Ambala City, issued orders to you to shift from Chandigarh to Ambala City in order to avoid your likely absence from your duties in the College. The said letter was duly received by you and in spite of the same you did not comply with the same but always reached the college late when the first period was already over. Thus, you were found to be absent on 3rd, 4th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th, 18th of September and 6th of October, 1980. But as a special case on 4th September, 1980, the Principal granted you one casual leave for two periods of two dates, namely, 3rd and 4th September and specifically ordered that no such leave will be allowed and granted in future. You were also informed by him that no such short leave was permissible under the rules. Yet in defiance of his orders and the Rules and Regulations governing your service conditions, you did not take up teaching work for the first period of your class on the dates noted above commencing from 8th September to 18th September, 1980 and 6th October, 1980. Without complying with orders, you availed of leave on 30.8.1980 without seeking the same as a result of which your application for leave for 30.8.1980 was not sanctioned.”

11. This charge was found, by the Enquiry Officer, to stand fully substantiated. Next was the charge:

“That in spite of the orders of the Principal, DAV College, Ambala City, dated 4th of September, 1980 to the effect that no short leave would be granted or was permissible under the rules, you absented yourself from 8th period on 18th September, 1980 and left Ambala after the 6th period. When your explanation was sought by the Principal you gave a false reply that no teaching work was held in the 8th period on 18th September, 1980 which is not a fact. An incorrect reply was given by you in defiance and non-compliance of orders of the Principal noted above.”

12. The conclusion recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to this charge being, “I find the second charge as to the absence on 8th period established. The objectionable language to which reference has been made above makes the case of the respondent much worse. Instead of disproving the charge he has gone completely out of the way with a seemingly set purpose to insult and abuse the Principal. He has gone completely beyond the scope of legitimate defence and has assumed the role of a prosecutor and calls his queries as “Investigative research.”

13. The third charge pertains to the language used by the petitioner in communications to his superiors. This is in these terms:—

“That you have been writing insolently and in language to tone unbecoming of a subordinate to his superior and in your letter dated September 7, 1980, used the following language against the Principal, DAV College, Ambala City:

“I have no hesitation in saying that the college is being ruined under your Principalship.”

Similarly in your lettler dated September 7, 1980, you again used the following insolent and derogatory language against the Head of the Institution:

“Non-receipt of the letter in question by you is a lie. Such a thing is done by a man who has become desperate. Indeed, before the footlights* of truth, you are enacting the role of a frustrated man.

Do you know what is the fourth teaching of the Aryan Samaj? It is “one should always be ready to accept truth and give up untruth.” So, please save yourself from moral degeneration and accept that you did receive the letter. Truth cannot be hid long.”

14. Again in another letter of the same date you used the following language exhibiting gross misconduct, insubordinate and extreme insolence on your part:

“If you want that I should came to meet my class without medical check up, I can come. Kindly give me a categorical certificate that if something happens to me in the College, the College takes the responsibility of paying five lakh rupees to my legal heirs. On my receipt of this certificate duly countersigned by the D.A.V College Managing Committee, I shall come to the college without medical check up in the morning. Your orders regarding non-permissibility of short leave are not accepted by me. I have written, through you, to the Vice-Chancellor of the Kuruk-shetra University. His verdict will be binding on me and you.”

15. Similarly in your letter dated 20th September, 1980 you excelled all norms of decency and subordination by using the following unbecoming language against the Head of the Institution:—

“I am afraid you are handicapped by a close mind and therefore, you cannot apply reason and logic to the case in hand which is expected of the Principal of this College. Logic and reason should be the predominant traits of your character, and not whims instincts and passions. Just think of your predecessor. Please rise above passions and do not behave like a whimsical Sarpanch of a village….when small people cast long shadows, the sun is about to set.”

16. Again in another letter dated 24th September, 1980 addressed to the President, D.A.V College Managing Committee, New Delhi, you wrote as follows. This again smacks of insubordination and indiscipline on your part:—

“…This deed (or misdeed?) is against the DAV ethos, culture and spirits. This is a horrible act, unimagible, unthinkable, ill-omened, ominous, sinister, clamitous, ruinuous, deplorable, insensible, heartless, I really fail to say what it is,” “That seat of light has become the seat of darkness. This act on the part of Mr. Kaul is devoid of all ethics of morality nothing short of indeed a catastrope in culture and civilisation a crash in moral values. And still Mr. Kaul calls himself an Arya Smajist, a man whose dark nature is concealed in this black deed. A cesspool of sham and self-seeking, he will come to stunning realisation that such shady, sombre and lurid deeds cannot be unpunished by the D.A.V College Managing Committee, a misdeed which is pricking the conscience of many a teacher.”

17. After due consideration of the relevant material and an exhaustive discussion, the Enquiry Officer found that this charge too stood fully substantiated.

18. The fourth charge was, “that without seeking the previous permission of the Principal of the College, you removed class attendance register from the DAV College Ambala City to Chandigarh and after filling up sent it by Reg. Post to the Principal of the College knowing fully that no record of the College could be removed outside its premises without his prior permission.”

19. The Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of any impropriety so far as the retention of the class attendance register was concerned but went on to observe, “his parenthetical remarks are open to grave objection. They are not at all relevant and were deliberately used with the set purpose of maligning the Principal which has been done ad nauseum.”

20. Turning now to the 5th charge, this was:—

“On your application, to the D.A.V College Managing Committee, New Delhi, it was pleased to sanction academic leave for a period of three years w.e.f 1st July, 1977 to 30th June 1980 under the University Grants Commission. It was conditional that after the expiry of the academic leave you should serve the college for at least five years, failing which you would refund full pay and allowance drawn during your academic leave, namely, from 1st July 1977 to 30th June 1980, in your case. In token of your having accepted to follow that rule of the University Grants Commission Scheme, you also gave the said undertaking on July 22, 1977.

In spite of the said undertaking you have absented yourself from the College since 8th of Oct. 1980 uptodate. A Regd. Letter was issued by the Principal, DAV College, Ambala City on 10.10.80 informing you that you were absent from the College without leave on 8th, 9th and 10th October, 1980 and requiring you to show cause why disciplinary action be not initiated against you for the same but you have not furnished your explantion as ordered by the Principal even till today thereby remaining absent from duty without permission and in defiance of the above undertaking and U.G.C SCHEME Rules.”

21. This charge too was found by the Enquiry Officer to be fully established against the petitioner.

22. The sixth charge was:—

“That without handing over resignation from the college and without submitting a formal charge of the document and record of the college and get yourself relieved in accordance with the rules and regulations Page: 99governing you in the D.A.V College, Ambala City you have sought employment and joined duty in the Department of English, Panjab University, Chandigarh and are in actual regular service of the University during the course of your employment with D.A.V College, Ambala City. This is violative of the service and the conduct Rules governing you as promulgated in the State of Haryana.”

23. This Charge too was found by the Enquiry Officer to be fully proved against the petitioner. It was further observed that the petitioner “has not attempted to deny the fact, though he has tried to explain it away by laying the blame on the Principal for which I see no justification.”

24. The 7th and last charge was:—

“That since 8th October, 1980 till today you are in continuous absence without leave from the DAV College, Ambala City, which has resulted in great inconvenience to the students of the college and has affected the image of the College very adversely. The students of your classes have been put to great loss and thus harm has been caused solely because of your unwarranted absence from the college.”

25. It was held by the Enquiry Officer that this charge had been proved only to the extent that the petitioner had been continuously absenting without leave which must have resulted in some inconvenience and loss to the students but the other allegations regarding the image of the college being affected was rather vague and hence not proved.

26. The Enquiry Officer concluded his report with the observations:—

“I may now give my over all comments as to the barbed language of their respondent against the Principal. If it had been a stony temperamental out-burst of a person provoked and suffering from want of self-restraint, a stray incident of a passing tantrum of an immature mind, it might have been treated as a peccedillo or a petty transgression though not forgivable or forgettable. But despite his high education and good command over English language, he has failed to give proof of command over his pen, when it came to frequent and repeated resort to invectives, abuses, revilement. His choice of contumelious language was deliberate and purposeful. The opportunity for giving a reply to the charges and for putting in his defence has been intentionally misused for mounting attacks on the Principal some of which totally unconnected with the charge and were in the nature of counter-attacks on matters extraneous to the subject of this inquiry. The respondent with full knowledge of what is relevant and irrelevant, transgressed, all bounds of self-restraint when it came to giving vent to his spleen against the Principal. The respondent has done so not only in his written reply of 181 pages to the charges but also in his supplementary statement ‘submission of written arguments’ of 64 pages. But even much earlier than the commencement of the inquiry, in his several communications addressed to the Principal and to the Managing Committee, there are uncontrolled and angry eruptions, without any excuse, justification; or provocation. He might have blunted the sharp sting of his sallies by expressing some contriteness or regret. On the contrary, he has with a vengeance and intense animosity hurled barrages of invectives in the nature of uncontrolled tonguelashing or more appropriately perhaps; pen-stabbing. Offering regrets, or expressing remorse Page: 100appears to be completely foreign to the respondents disposition or mental make up. An expression of unconditional regret or tandering of genuine apology, though not extenuating, can be mitigating in certain circumstance provided expression of regret is not just a formal lip-service but a contriteness coming from the heart. But in this case the respondent seeems to be impervious and has further gone out of his way to seek and create any occasion as a pretext for hurling repeated tirader. It is extremely regretable that the respondent had not been able to discipline his mind or rain in his tamper, control his pen or weigh his words. His defence has been more exacerbating than palliating right up to the end.

I have come to the conclusion on the basis an extremely bad case of indiscipline, insubordination and misconduct. The respondent in my view is an extremely unsuitable person for holding the post of a teacher which requires him to be amenable to discipline and expect from him a due respect for authority and a restraint and control over his violent impulse and explosive tamper. There is also a grave tendency towards suppression of facts, vent of straight-forwardness, reluctance to admit true facts and a pronounced tendency for twisting words, phrases, intentions of others completely from out of context. This inquiry has been a painful discovery of an intelligent mind bereft of mental restraint, respect for truth or fairness to others. He has been unabashedly resorting to mainfest and ill-concealed quibbling, equivocation and shifty sgihistry and caring criticism.

I have come to the painful conclusion that he had fully demonstrated his incapacity to hold a position which calls for exercise of reasonable self control and discipline and where condour and truthfulness is a necessary asset. I find charge 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 fully proved and charges 4 and 7 partially proved. The respondent's misconduct is of gross magnitude. It cannot be overlooked or excused.”

27. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on September 4, 1981, which was considered at a meeting of the Governing Body of the D.A.V College on March 18, 1982, alongwith the explanation of the petitioner and his written arguments comprising 64 typed pages submitted by him to the Enquiry Officer and it was decided that the services of the petitioner be terminated with effect from the next day i.e March 19, 1982 and it was further resolved that the matter be put up before the Director, Higher Education, Haryana for approval.

28. The Director Higher Education, Haryana, after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and going through the record of the case accorded approval to the imposition of the penalty of termination of services upon the petitioner but with the rider that the order of termination shall take effect not from March 19, 1982 but from the date on which it is issued. This order was later affirmed in Revision by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Haryana on June 10, 1993. It was, in the meanwhile, communicated by the Principal of the College to the petitioner that the date of the termination of his services had, been altered from March 19, 1982 to June 15, 1982.

29. In a long, rembling petition, repetitious and argumentative in content, wherein the petitioner has chosen to describe himself as one, ‘known for his Page: 101sweet reasonableness, various grounds have been mentioned therein on which he seeks to question the action taken against him.

30. The attempt as the very outset was to impugn the order of suspension, charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer as being without justification and illegal on the ground that the authority that had done all this was not a properly constituted body. The invalidity sought to be imputed to it being that the governing body of the college did not have on it two representatives of teachers as required by the relevant University Regulations.

31. A plea was also raised that, at any rate the charges as framed against the petitioner did not constitute “grave misconduct” in terms of the said University Regulations. There is no merit in either of these contentions.

32. A plain reading of the charges leaves no manner of doubt, that if proved, they would undoubtedly constitute ‘grave misconduct’ on the part of the petitioner and this, indeed, has been shown to be so too by the Enquiry Officer, in his exhaustive and very well reasoned report.

33. As regards representatives of teachers being on the governing body of the college, it will be recalled that this was one of the Preliminary Objections raised by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. No exception can, indeed, be taken to the manner in which the Enquiry Officer dealt with this matter and his reasons for repelling this objection. The view of the Enquiry Officer undoubtedly deserves to be endorsed and it must, therefore, be held that the absence of representatives of teachers on the D.A.V College Managing Committee constituted on infirmity in the action against the petitioner.

34. The other ground on which the legality of the order of suspension was questioned was that it had been passed against the petitioner while he was on leave. The argument being that the governing body was barred from serving an order of suspension upon an employee while he was on leave. The petitioner, of course, could cite no rule or regulation in support of it. On the face of it, this contention is wholly devoid of reason or merit. It may also be pointed out that no such plea find's mention in the petition.

35. The other Preliminary Objection raised before the Enquiry Officer, which the petitioner sought to reiterate, was that once the three months period of suspension had expired, on March 3, 1981, the Enquiry Officer became functus officio and the charges stood quashed and he was, thus, entitlled to reinstatement. Here too, it will be seen that a complete answer to this is provided in the report of the Enquiry Officer. No flaw could be pointed out in the reasoning of the Enquiry Officer for repelling this plea. By mere passage of time, the charges framed against a delinquent employee do not get washed away nor can an employee stand absolved of them.

36. Before proceeding further it may be pointed out here that one of the main pleas urged by the petitioner during the hearing of this writ petition was that the Preliminary Objections raised by him before the Enquiry Officer had not been dealt with by the Enquiry Officer. The falsity of this plea would stand writ large by a more perusal of the enquiry report. All the Preliminary Objections referred to by the petitioner find mention in the enquiry report and they have, as shown earlier, all been duly considered and properly dealt with.

37. Stress was next laid by the petitioner upon the fact that no personal hearing had been granted to him by the governing body before passing of the Resolution of March 18, 1982, whereby it was resolved that the petitioner be awarded the punishment of termination of services. A reference to the record shows that notice of this meeting as served upon the petitioner which was duly received by him. The petitioner, on his part, instead of appearing before the governing body chose to send a telegram requesting adjournment for a week. This request was declined but it is pertinent to note that the governing body considered the explanation of the petitioner to the charge-sheet, which, as mentioned earlier, was of over 180 typed pages as also his written arguments of 64 papges submitted by him to the Enquiry Officer. In these circumstances, no legal infirmity can be imputed to this resolution merely on the ground that the petitioner's request for adjurnment had not been accepted.

38. A plea was next raised that the petitioner had been prejudiced in his defence by the fact that he had not been paid any subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. While considering this matter, it would be pertinent to note that, admittedly, without the permission or consent of the governing body, the petitioner had, while under suspension, taken up employment as Lecturer at the Panjab University, Chandigarh, from December 17, 1980 to March 16, 1981. Having taken up such employment and, in this manner, the Petitioner cannot now be heard to say that the enquiry against him stands vitiated for non-payment of subsistence allowance.

39. The next point urged by the petitioner was that he had not been allowed to engage Counsel for the enquiry. In dealing with this matter, it deserves note that he was unable to point to any such application or request having been made by him either to the Enquiry Officer or to the governing body. No such application has been brought on record nor, indeed, is there such application. Not having asked for an Advocate at any stage of the proceedings, the petitioner cannot now be heard to question the validity of the enquiry against him on this account. It may be pointed out here that even in this Court, the petitioner had chosen to argue his petition in person.

40. The validity of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was also sought to be challenged on the ground that according to the resolution passed by the governing body of the college on March 18, 1982 it was directed that his services be terminated with effect from March 19, 1982, i.e without prior approval as required by the provisions of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979. It was accorodingly sought to be argued that as the governing body had ordered the termination of his services, without obtaining such prior approval, this order was non est.

41. It is, no doubt, correct that prior approval of the Director, in terms of the provisions of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Act, 1979 is mandatory, before the services of any teacher can be terminated, but in the present case, it will be seen that this errror on the part of the governing body stood rectified by the subsequent order changing the date of the termination of the services of the petitioner to the date of the order issued by it in this behalf, after the approval of the Director had been obtained. This lapse on the part of the governing body cannot suffice to vitiate, the otherwise valid and legal order of termination passed against the petitioner.

42. It will, thus, be seen that there is no substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner to question the legality of the action taken against him. The material on record rather more than amply explains and justifies the termination of the services of the petitioner.

43. Before parting with this matter, reference may also be made to the application filed by the petitioner under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the prosecution of Principal G.D Jindal for perjury. The perjury complained being that the petitioner had submitted a claim for arrears of salary.on January 25, 1983 and it had been admitted on behalf of the management of the College before the revisional authority in Annexure VI that the claim of the petitioner had been received and yet Principal G.D Jindal in his affidavit of February 7, 1988, had stated that he was not aware if any such claim had been made by the petitioner.

44. No occasion is provided here for initiating any action for prejury when regard is had to the fact that it was only in 1987 that Principal G.D Jindal had joined the College. For him to have said that he was not aware of any claim having been made by the petitioner, cannot, therefore, be branded as a deliberate false statement by him. This application is consequently hereby dismissed as being wholly devoid of merit.

45. The writ petition too is hereby dismissed with Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

46. Petition dismissed.