Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Declares Termination  of the Lecturer  Without show cause notice Illegal, Orders Reinstatement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


0n 5 July 2023, In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the termination of services of a senior lecturer at Ansal Institute of Technology as illegal, ordering his immediate reinstatement. The court also directed the management to pay all notional benefits, including arrears of salary. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jaishree Thakur, emphasized the violation of Service Rules and Section 22 of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1988.

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Verma, had filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the order dismissing his appeal against the termination and reinstatement with continuity of service. The court held that the termination was illegal as it failed to comply with the Service Rules and Section 22, which required a three-month notice or a show cause notice before termination.

Justice Jaishree Thakur, in her judgment, stated, “The termination of the petitioner’s services without issuing a show cause notice and solely relying on the appointment letter, which permits termination by giving three months’ notice, is illegal and deserves to be set aside.”

The court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the writ petition was not maintainable due to a previous civil suit filed by the petitioner. The civil suit was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Educational Tribunal, and the court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply.

“The principle of res judicata does not bar the writ petition as the civil suit was not decided on any issue,” Justice Jaishree Thakur stated.

The judgment further highlighted that the management had violated the Service Rules by terminating the petitioner’s services with only one month’s notice instead of the required three months. The court directed the management to reinstate the petitioner immediately, along with all notional benefits.

This judgment holds significance as it reaffirms the importance of following due process and ensuring the protection of employees’ rights. It serves as a reminder to educational institutions to adhere to the prescribed rules and regulations governing the termination of services.

Date of Decision: 5th July 2023.

Manoj Kumar Verma vs Management Board of Ansal Institute of Technology & others

Latest Legal News