Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin Shocking And Disturbing That Cows Died Due To Starvation: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Neglect Of Temple Gosala Promoter Cannot Retain Ownership By Merely Using The Word ‘Lease’: Bombay High Court Upholds Ownership Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA

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