Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr.

Decided On : Jan-10-1995

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 2 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 3 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 7 of the Act',
			(int) 7 => 'Rule 4',
			(int) 8 => 'The Governing Body of the college',
			(int) 9 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 10 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 11 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 12 => 'the Governing Body/Managing Committee',
			(int) 13 => 'Rule 4',
			(int) 14 => 'the Governing Body (Annexure',
			(int) 15 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 16 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 17 => 'P-5'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ORDERG.S. Singhvi',
			(int) 1 => 'Principal',
			(int) 2 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 3 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 4 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 5 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 6 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 9 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 12 => 'Govind Goel',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri Goel',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Goel Argued',
			(int) 15 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 16 => 'Shri Goel',
			(int) 17 => 'Managing Commitlee',
			(int) 18 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 19 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 20 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 21 => 'Rickshaw',
			(int) 22 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 23 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 24 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 25 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 26 => 'Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab',
			(int) 27 => 'S.C. 1671.(7',
			(int) 28 => 'Bakhtawar Singh',
			(int) 29 => 'Taxes',
			(int) 30 => 'Mohindra',
			(int) 31 => 'N.M.',
			(int) 32 => 'Rickshawpuller',
			(int) 33 => 'Nos',
			(int) 34 => 'Ram Singh',
			(int) 35 => 'Ram Singh's',
			(int) 36 => 'Gurpal Singh',
			(int) 37 => 'Haryana'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Rules',
			(int) 2 => 'Rules',
			(int) 3 => 'Shyama'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '30.7.1980',
			(int) 1 => 'the year 1983',
			(int) 2 => 'October 8, 1990',
			(int) 3 => '28.12.1990',
			(int) 4 => '1.12.1990',
			(int) 5 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 6 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 7 => '1980',
			(int) 8 => '1980',
			(int) 9 => '4',
			(int) 10 => '6',
			(int) 11 => '1980',
			(int) 12 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 13 => 'a date earlier',
			(int) 14 => '10 years',
			(int) 15 => '1980',
			(int) 16 => '8.10.1990',
			(int) 17 => '8.6.1991',
			(int) 18 => 'Sunday',
			(int) 19 => ''11',
			(int) 20 => 'October',
			(int) 21 => ''12',
			(int) 22 => '1980',
			(int) 23 => '1961',
			(int) 24 => '1967',
			(int) 25 => '1969',
			(int) 26 => '1970',
			(int) 27 => '1972',
			(int) 28 => '1972',
			(int) 29 => '1976',
			(int) 30 => '1001.(11',
			(int) 31 => '1979',
			(int) 32 => '1975)4 S.C.C.',
			(int) 33 => '1990',
			(int) 34 => '94',
			(int) 35 => '1979',
			(int) 36 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 37 => 'ten years',
			(int) 38 => 'Sunday',
			(int) 39 => 'a date earlier',
			(int) 40 => '1989(2',
			(int) 41 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 42 => 'a period of',
			(int) 43 => 'three months'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Hindu Girls College',
			(int) 1 => 'College',
			(int) 2 => 'Managing Committee',
			(int) 3 => 'Financial',
			(int) 4 => 'Government',
			(int) 5 => 'Haryana, Department of Education',
			(int) 6 => 'Financial',
			(int) 7 => 'Education Department',
			(int) 8 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (',
			(int) 9 => 'Security of Service',
			(int) 10 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules',
			(int) 11 => 'College',
			(int) 12 => 'College',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
			(int) 14 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 15 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 16 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'Department of Education',
			(int) 19 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 20 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
			(int) 21 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 22 => 'Government',
			(int) 23 => 'the Mandal Commission',
			(int) 24 => 'a Laboratory Attendent',
			(int) 25 => 'the Managing Committee of the College',
			(int) 26 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 27 => 'the Mandal Commission Report',
			(int) 28 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 29 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 30 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 31 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 32 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 33 => 'Managing Committee',
			(int) 34 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 35 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 36 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 37 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 38 => 'DirectorThe',
			(int) 39 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 40 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 41 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 42 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 43 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 44 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 45 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 46 => 'State',
			(int) 47 => 'Mandal Commission Report',
			(int) 48 => 'the Principal of the College',
			(int) 49 => 'Shri Pawan Kumar',
			(int) 50 => 'Girls College',
			(int) 51 => 'the Girls Hostel',
			(int) 52 => 'College',
			(int) 53 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Hari Nagar Sugar Mills',
			(int) 55 => 'Ltd.v',
			(int) 56 => 'S.C. 1669.(2',
			(int) 57 => 'Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd.',
			(int) 58 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 59 => 'Bhagat Raja v. Union of India',
			(int) 60 => 'Travencore Rayon Ltd.',
			(int) 61 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 62 => 'S.C. 2083.(8',
			(int) 63 => 'Woolcombers Workers Union',
			(int) 64 => 'Siemens Engineering',
			(int) 65 => 'v. Union of India',
			(int) 66 => 'Ajantha Industries',
			(int) 67 => 'Central Board',
			(int) 68 => 'Mohindra Ltd.',
			(int) 69 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 70 => 'S.N.',
			(int) 71 => 'Testeels Ltd.',
			(int) 72 => 'Court',
			(int) 73 => 'College',
			(int) 74 => 'a Girls College',
			(int) 75 => 'College',
			(int) 76 => 'the Mandal Commission's',
			(int) 77 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 78 => 'State',
			(int) 79 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 80 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 81 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 82 => 'Court',
			(int) 83 => 'College',
			(int) 84 => 'College',
			(int) 85 => 'Court',
			(int) 86 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board',
			(int) 87 => 'College'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 1 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 2 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 4 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Kumar v. State',
			(int) 6 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 7 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 8 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 9 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 10 => 'S.C.C.',
			(int) 11 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 12 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 13 => 'Kerala',
			(int) 14 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 15 => 'J.T.',
			(int) 16 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 17 => 'duty.19'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2',
			(int) 1 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 2 => '4.4.1991',
			(int) 3 => '29.7.1991',
			(int) 4 => '22.4.1992',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => '7',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => 'one',
			(int) 9 => '2',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '2',
			(int) 12 => '6.10.1990,(c',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '2',
			(int) 15 => 'one',
			(int) 16 => '4(4',
			(int) 17 => '3',
			(int) 18 => '4(2',
			(int) 19 => '4(3',
			(int) 20 => '4(4',
			(int) 21 => '5',
			(int) 22 => '6',
			(int) 23 => '4(2',
			(int) 24 => '4(4',
			(int) 25 => '6',
			(int) 26 => '4(2)Where',
			(int) 27 => '1',
			(int) 28 => '1',
			(int) 29 => '6',
			(int) 30 => '7',
			(int) 31 => '4(2',
			(int) 32 => '28.12.1990',
			(int) 33 => 'Two',
			(int) 34 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 35 => '6.10.90',
			(int) 36 => '6.10.90',
			(int) 37 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 38 => 'two',
			(int) 39 => '2',
			(int) 40 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 41 => 'two',
			(int) 42 => '2',
			(int) 43 => '1980.13',
			(int) 44 => 'two',
			(int) 45 => '1607.(4',
			(int) 46 => '1974)3',
			(int) 47 => '318.(9',
			(int) 48 => '2',
			(int) 49 => '789.(12',
			(int) 50 => '4',
			(int) 51 => '1',
			(int) 52 => '2',
			(int) 53 => '253',
			(int) 54 => '2',
			(int) 55 => '463.20',
			(int) 56 => '2',
			(int) 57 => '2',
			(int) 58 => '2'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 2 => ''Shri Pawan Kumar Lab',
			(int) 3 => 'The Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'First',
			(int) 1 => 'Second',
			(int) 2 => 'Third',
			(int) 3 => 'Fourth',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'second',
			(int) 6 => '7th',
			(int) 7 => 'first'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the 1980 Rules',
			(int) 1 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 2 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 3 => 'S.C. 671.(3',
			(int) 4 => 'S.C. 1302.(6'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the night',
			(int) 1 => 'the night',
			(int) 2 => 'the morning',
			(int) 3 => 'the night',
			(int) 4 => 'the morning',
			(int) 5 => 'the morning'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rule 4',
			(int) 1 => 'Ride 4(4',
			(int) 2 => 'P-3',
			(int) 3 => 'Rule 4(4',
			(int) 4 => 'Rule 4(4',
			(int) 5 => 'P-3',
			(int) 6 => 'P-3',
			(int) 7 => 'P-3'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gujarat 1.15'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624635',
			'acts' => 'Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 - Rule 3 and 3(1)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 9223/1992',
			'appellant' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :3. Penalties -(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :xx xx xx xx xx' 6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. ' 7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. 8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in: 1979 Gujarat 1. 15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. 16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police -has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. 463. 20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh;',
			'citingcases' => 'xx    xx    xx    xx    xx'',
			'counselplain' => ' S.P. Jain and; Rajesh Gumber, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Govind Goel, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1995-01-10',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.S. Singhvi, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.S. Singhvi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner joined service on his appointment as Lab. Assistant on 30.7.1980 in Hindu Girls College, Sonepat, which is being managed by respondent No. 2. He was confirmed in service in the year 1983. On October 8, 1990, the petitioner was suspended. This was followed by a charge-sheet dated 28.12.1990, which was issued by the principal of the College on the basis of decision taken by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 1.12.1990. On 11.1.1991, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure R-2) before the Principal expressing regret for his conduct and requested that he may be pardoned. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 23.3.1991. The Governing Body took notice of the reply filed by the petitioner and the view that the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him. It decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. With a view to comply with the principles of natural justice, the Governing Body decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in its next meeting. On 4.4.1991, the Principal of the College issued notice (Annexure P-2) and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply in regard to the proposal of the Governing body and to express his desire as to whether he wanted to be heard personally. The petitioner expressed his desire to be heard in person. According to him that opportunity of hearing was not given by the Governing Body but he was made to appear before the Chairman of the Governing Body, who transmitted his case to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, for approval of the proposal of Managing Committee to terminate his service. The petitioner submitted representation dated 29.7.1991 (Annexure P-4) to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and prayed that the recommendation made by the Governing Body be quashed, he be exonerated of the charges and the matter be dropped. The Director, Higher Education, gave his approval to the proposal of the Governing Body regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner. On the basis of this approval, the Governing Body of the College passed resolution dated 20.11.1991 and terminated his service w.e.f. 8.10.1990. Against the approval accorded by the Director, the petitioner filed a revision petition. That too has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Haryana, Department of Education, vide his order dated 22.4.1992 (Annexure P-9).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petitioner has challenged the legality of the action taken by respondent No. 2 terminating his service, the approval accorded by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana and the dismissal of his revision petition by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department. His case is that the proceedings were held against him in violation of the provisions contained in the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979(for short, 'the Act') and the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules of 1980'). Petitioner has pleaded that the procedure prescribed in Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1980 has not been followed by the respondents before passing the order of termination of his service and that the revising authority has not passed a speaking order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In its written statement, respondent No. 2 has stated that the management of the college had received a complaint (Annexure R-1) from one Maha Singh Sharma alleging that the petitioner, who was in drunken state on 7.10.1990, had misbehaved with him when the complainant had visited the college to enquire as to when the college will re-open. The petitioner was immediately sent for medical examination and he was found to be under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.10.1990. Thereafter, the Governing Body decided to charge-sheet the petitioner. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner made a statement in writing admitting the allegations. The Governing Body considered the entire matter and resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the gravity of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner's service be terminated. Nevertheless the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing. He appeared before the President of the College and prayed that a lenient view be taken. The matter was considered by the President of the College and he directed that the proposal for termination of the petitioner's service under Section 7 of the Act be sent. Representation made by the petitioner against that proposal was considered by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, who approved the proposal. Thereafter, a decision was taken in the meeting of the Governing Body held on 20.11.1991 to terminate the petitioner's service and that decision was conveyed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is commensurate with the allegation of misconduct found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First argument of Shri S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. 2 to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in spite of his admission that he had consumed alcohol. Learned counsel argued that under Rule 4(4) of the 1980 Rules, it is the duty of the Managing Committee to record a finding on the charge levelled against the employee and as no such finding was recorded in the case of the petitioner, entire proceeding leading to the award of punishment is vitiated. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Third argument of Shri Jain is that the orders passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and the Secretary, Department of Education, are non-speaking, inasmuch as neither of these authorities has applied its mind to the various contentions raised by the petitioner and have not assigned reasons for approving the proposal of the Managing Committee to terminate the service of the petitioner and reject his revision petition. Fourth contention raised by Shri S.P. Jain is that termination of service with retrospective effect is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as respondent No. 2 was not entitled to bring an end the relationship of master and servant with effect from a date earlier than the date of issue of order. Lastly, Shri Jain argued that neither the Managing Committee nor the Director, Higher Education, considered the past record of the petitioner and his length of service while awarding the extreme penalty resulting in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood. Shri Jain pointed out that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner has been magnified beyond all proportions by alleging that the petitioner had consumed liquor while in service of a girls college and while doing so all the authorities have ignored the following facts :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the petitioner had admitted the consumption of liquor on 6.10.1990, but he had stated that liquor was consumed by him at his home due to adverse family circumstances,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) That he was away from his home in the night of 6.10.1990,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) That he was brought to the college by a rickshaw puller,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) That the college was closed due to holidays on 7.10.1990 and even other-wise the college was not functioning due to agitation of students in connection with Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission regarding reservation,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) That the petitioner was merely a Laboratory Attendent and was not connected with the security duty in the college,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) That the petitioner had a clean record of service of over 10 years and his conduct of consuming liquor was an isolated instance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Govind Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, argued that after a proper inquiry held in accordance with Rule 4 and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 decided to punish the petitioner for his grave misconduct involving consumption of liquor and misbehaviour with guardian of one of the students. Shri Goel vehemently argued that the singular act of the petitioner to consume the liquor was sufficient to dismiss him from service and the Managing Committee of the College has duly taken note of the admissions made by the petitioner while holding him guilty of the allegations levelled against him. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. He pointed out that the Director, Higher Education, examined all the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation and found no merit in the same and, therefore, the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, should be treated as a speaking order. Shri Goel argued that even though 7.10.1990 might be a holiday and college might be not functioning due to agitation in connection with the Mandal Commission Report, the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner cannot be diluted on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Penalties -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :-xx xx xx xx xx'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. Rule 4(2) contemplates preparation of the charge-sheet. Rule 4(3) speaks of delivery to the employee a copy of the articles of charges, the statement of allegations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be substantiated. The employee is required to be called upon to submit a written statement of defence and express his desire whether he wants to be heard in person. Rule 4(4) contemplates action required to be taken by the Managing Committee on receipt of the written statement of defence. Various other Sub-rules of Rule 4 lay down the procedure to be followed in the conduct of inquiry. Rule 5 speaks of the action which the Managing Committee is entitled to take on the inquiry report. Rule 6 provides for the action to be taken by the Director on receipt of the proposal from the Managing Committee. Rule 7 provides for passing of a detailed order by the Managing Committee on receipt of the approval from the Director. Rule 4(2), 4(4), 6 and 7 can usefully be quoted below for proper appreciation of the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Rule 4(2)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Where it is proposed to proceed against an employee for the award of major punishment the Managing Committee shall draw up-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) a statement of allegations on which each charge is based including the statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the employee,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be substantiated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 4(4)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into such of the articles of charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose, and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the employee in his written statement of defence, the Managing Committee shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it. may think fit and shall act in the manner hereinafter laid down in these rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the employee within the specified period, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Where the Managing Committee itself inquires into the articles of charges or appoints an inquiry officer for holding an inquiry into such charges, it may, by order, appoint a presenting officer to present, on its behalf, the case in support of the articles of charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 6, Action by Director</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Director, on receipt of such proposal and representation, if any, may, after examining the record and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard by an order in writing give him approval to the imposition of the proposed punishment or refuse to give approval, if the proposal is found to be mala fide or by way of victimisation or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 7. Order by Managing Commitlee-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the approval of the Director, the Managing Committee shall pass an order in detail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. In terms of Rule 4(2) the Managing Committee is required to draw up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges.In terms of Ride 4(4), the Managing Committee is required to record its finding on each charge where articles of charges have been admitted by the employee. While recording finding on each charge, the Managing Committee is entitled to take such evidence as it considers appropriate. It shall then proceed in accordance with other Rules. The Director to whom a proposal is required to be forwarded by the Managing Committee in terms of Rule 5(3)(b), (c) and (d), has to consider the proposal of the Managing Committee together with representation of the employee and then - give approval or refuse to give approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee. For arriving at his decision, the Director is free to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him. He brought this fact to the notice of the President of the College. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the hospital and he was found to be under the influence of alcohol. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8.10.1990. The Governing Body of the college decided to serve a charge-sheet upon the petitioner which was issued on 28.12.1990. Two allegations were levelled against the petitioner. The first one was that the petitioner was found drunken in the reception room on the main gate of the college on 7.10.1990. The second one was that the petitioner had misbehaved with Maha Singh Sharma. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.1.1991 in which he admitted the consumption of liquor. The circumstances in which the petitioner consumed the liquor and was found in the reception room at the college gate have been enumerated in his reply which reads:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In this regard I stated that on the night of 6.10.90, I consumed alcohol in excess quantity on account of some problem at my house. Therefore, I could not regain senses till the morning of 7.10.1990 and I remained out of my house during the night of 6.10.90. In the morning, I was brought to the college gate by Rickshaw puller. Thereupon I remained lying in the reception room. I 'feel sorry for my misconduct during this period and I assure you that such mistake will not be repeated nor I have conducted such mistake in the past. Therefore, I request that I may be pardoned. I shall be grateful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, it is significant to observe that in his complaint Maha Singh Sharma did not state that he was a guardian of the girl student. Another significant feature which emerges from the complaint is that Maha Singh Sharma had come to enquire as to when the college will re-open. This indicates that the college was closed on 7.10.1990. It is also significant to note that though Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him under the influence of liquor, he did not indicate as to in what manner the petitioner misbehaved with him. No particulars of the allegation of the misbehaviour have been given in the statement of imputation (Annexure P-1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. After the petitioner had expressed his regret in his letter dated 11.1.1991, the Government Body resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the admissions made by the petitioner, he deserves to be removed from the service. However, at the time it was decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This opportunity of personal hearing was admittedly not given to the petitioner by the Governing Body but by the Chairman of the Government Body as is evident from Annexure P-3 dated 8.6.1991. Before the Director of Higher Education to whom the proposal was sent by the Chairman, the petitioner had pleaded that the college was closed on 7.10.1990 due to Sunday and almost all educational institution were closed in the State due to agitation on Mandal Commission Report. He also pointed out the circumstances under which he consumed liquor. He further stated that when a person came to him to enquire about the re-opening of the college, he had told him to enquire from the Principal of the College and upon this the said person felt offended. He submitted that his confession was secured by the President of the Government Body under immense pressure. The petitioner also stated that no inquiry was held against him and no opportunity of personal hearing was not given to him. What the Director of Higher Education did was that he considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner and two pleas raised by the petitioner in his written statement, namely, that his confessions were secured under pressure and that there were procedural infirmities in the action of the management. Thereafter, the Director recorded his conclusion in the following words:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I have considered the submission made by both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. The facts of misconduct against Shri Pawan Kumar stand proved. Such acts of misconduct on the part of an employee of Girls College needs to be taken seriously. I, therefore, approve the proposal of the management regarding the termination of services of 'Shri Pawan Kumar Lab. Assistant. The management may pass further orders as per provisions of the rules.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Secretary to whom the revision petition was preferred by the petitioner dismissed the same with the following observations:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find from the explanation submitted by the petitioner that he had admitted being drunk and not being in control of his senses on the morning of 7th October. He has also admitted that he was present in the campus although he denied that he was in the office room. Thus, the main charge that the petitioner was found drunk in the premises of the Girls Hostel, has been admitted by the petitioner. I agree with the view of the management that special pre-cautions have to be taken in the case of any mis-behaviour in the campus of a hostel meant for girls. The petitioner, as a member of the College staff, should not have got drunk and gone to the college hostel premises even if he had gone only as far as the lawn of the hostel. This kind of incident can create an adverse view in the public about the security in the girls hostel and this no college management can afford to ignore. I, therefore, find no merit in the petition and reject the appeal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The argument of Shri Jain that respondent No. 2 did not comply with the provisions of Rule 4(4) is, in my opinion, without force. The Governing Body of the College did consider the reply dated 11.1.1991 filed by the petitioner and recorded a finding that the petitioner has confessed his guilty regarding both the charges. Whether the ultimate action taken by the Governing Body to terminate the service of the petitioner is legally sustainable or not, this much is evident from perusal of Annexure R-3 that the Governing Body did consider the reply of the petitioner and recorded its conclusion in respect of the two charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 contravened Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 1980.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. However, two serious infirmities with which the action taken by the respondents suffer and to which detailed reference would be made hereinafter have the effect of vitiating the action of the respondents in bringing about an end to the service of the petitioner. The first infirmity is that after having decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the Government Body did not in fact give such an opportunity to the petitioner. In this context reference to Annexure R-3 is once again necessary. A look at that document shows that the Governing Body unequivocally resolved to hear the petitioner personally before taking a final decision. However, when the stage reached for giving personal hearing to the petitioner, the Chairman and not the Governing body heard the petitioner. This fact is proved from Annexure P-3. The Government Body consists of the Chairman and members and, therefore, hearing given by the Chairman cannot be equated with a hearing by the Governing Body. It was quite possible for the Governing Body to have taken a different view of the misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner in the light of his personal explanation. Therefore, the hearing given to the petitioner by the Chairman will have to be treated as no hearing in the eye of law. Logically, it must be held that the decision taken by the Chairman vide Annexure P-3 was contrary to the rule of natural justice. It is irrelevant that no provision exists in the Rules for giving an opportunity of personal hearing by the Governing Body/Managing Committee. Having suo moto decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing, the Government Body could have not ignored its own decision. This breach of the principles of natural justice coupled with another equally serious legal infirmity does have the effect of invalidating the impugned action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Rule 3(1) read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1980 shows that on the basis of the inquiry held in terms of Rule 4 and consideration made by the Director, Higher Education, the competent authority has to pass a detailed order and such order has to be a speaking order. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This provision is in substance a statutory incorporation of the principles of natural justice. It is one of the settled principles of administrative law that every quasi-judicial authority must pass a speaking order, The duty to act judicially is integral part of exercise of quasi judicial functions by every public authority. Such authority is under an obligation to demonstrate that it has acted judicially and fairly. This is possible only when its decision is reasoned one, i.e. the order passed by such authority contains reasons. Requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been treated as an essential feature of the concept of natural justice. Only in the cases of express exclusion or some compelling situation in which this requirement can be read as impliedly excluded, an order passed by the quasi-judicial authority is liable to be nullified if it does not contain reasons. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd.v. Shyama Sunder Jhunjhunwala, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1669.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1607.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Travencore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) III S.C.C.868.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1302.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2083.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, (1974)3 S.C.C. 318.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Siemens Engineering and . v. Union of India, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 981.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Director Taxes, (1976)1 S.C.C. 1001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 789.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Rama Verma Bharathan Tharpuram v. State of Kerala, (1975)4 S.C.C. 782</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(13) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 S.C.C. 94, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14) Testeels Ltd. v. N.M. Desai, A.I.R. 1979 Gujarat 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. Such consideration would necessarily include consideration of the allegations of misconduct, reply filed by the delinquent employee, the evidence, if any, collected during the course of inquiry and the representation, if any, submitted by the delinquent. For determining the quantum of punishment these authorities will also have to consider the length of service of the employee, his past record, the nature of misconduct and its impact on the service. A decision taken by the competent authority after due consideration of these factors will ordinarily be immuned from interference by the Courts. However, if the competent authority fails to apply its mind or it is found that the competent authority was influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations or the reasons recorded by such authority are wholly insufficient for awarding a particular punishment, the Court will be entitled to quash such decision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. These authorities were greatly influenced by the singular fact that the petitioner who was in the service of a Girls College, had consumed liquor and had allegedly misbehaved with a person who had made some enquiry from him regarding the reopening of the College. The statement of the petitioner that he had consumed liquor at his house on 6.10.1990 and that he was brought at the college gate on 7.10.1990 by a Rickshawpuller and he was lying in the reception room has altogether been overlooked. It has also been overlooked that 7.10.1990 was a holiday and the college was otherwise also closed on account of agitation of the students in connection with reservation policy of the Government and the Mandal Commission's report. It has also been ignored that the petitioner had rendered ten years unblemished service and that he was not on duty on 7.10.1990. Non-consideration of these material factors is sufficient to give rise to an inference that neither of the authorities had adverted their attention to the relevant considerations before taking a decision to terminate the service of the petitioner. It must, therefore, be held that the action taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. Rather there has been a non-consideration of many important factors which were required to be taken note of by the competent authorities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State Punjab v. Ram Singh, J.T. 1992(4) S.C. 253, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in support of his argument that the petitioner was guilty of gravest misconduct, is of little assistance to the case of that respondent. That was a case in which a member of the police force was found heavily drunk while on duties. He became uncontrollable and was seen roaming or wandering in the market with service revolver. In that background the Supreme Court held that the authorities were fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police - has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. In that very case, the Supreme Court did observe that taking to drink by itself may not be a misconduct and out of office hours one may take drink and remain in the house. This shows that even the apex Court has recognised that taking of drink by a person while he is not on duty is by itself not sufficient to charge him with the allegation of misconduct but taking to drink while on duty has to be viewed seriously. In so far as the case in hand is concerned there is no allegation that the petitioner had consumed liquor while on duty or he come to the College to perform his duties after consuming liquor. Rather it is an admitted position that the College was closed on 7.10.1990 on account of Sunday and also that various educational institutions were already closed due to anti-reservation agitation. Therefore, the principle laid down in Ram Singh's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. At the cost of repetition, it need be mentioned that the petitioner had con- sumed liquor at his home on 6.10.1990. He was not on duty at that time and even on 7.10.1990 he was not on duty. Therefore, his case cannot be treated as similar to the case of a police constable who was found in a drunken state while on duty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Another reason for not sustaining the impugned action is that the employer has terminated the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect. Termination of service can operate prospectively and not from a date earlier than the date of order. This proposition finds support from the judgment in this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh, 1989(2) R.S.J. 463.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Commissioner was under the impression that the petitioner had consumed liquor in the college and then had gone to the College-hostel premises. This was not even the allegation levelled against the petitioner by the management. No evidence was placed on record to show that the petitioner had gone to the hostel premises. Therefore, it must be held that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government decided the revision petition more on conjectures and assumptions rather on the material placed before him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order (Annexure P-5) and resolution (Annexure P-7) are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. The Director, Higher Education, Haryana, is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of proposal sent to him by respondent No. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment. During the intervening period, i.e. from 20.11.1991 till the date of fresh order, the petitioner shall be treated under suspension. It shall be for the Director to take a final decision regarding the treatment to be meted for the period of suspension. After receipt of the order from the Director, respondent No. 2 shall pass necessary order. Appropriate action in this regard shall be taken by the Director, Higher Education, and respondent No. 2 within a period of three months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1995)110PLR506',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624635'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 2 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 3 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 7 of the Act',
		(int) 7 => 'Rule 4',
		(int) 8 => 'The Governing Body of the college',
		(int) 9 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 10 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 11 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 12 => 'the Governing Body/Managing Committee',
		(int) 13 => 'Rule 4',
		(int) 14 => 'the Governing Body (Annexure',
		(int) 15 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 16 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 17 => 'P-5'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ORDERG.S. Singhvi',
		(int) 1 => 'Principal',
		(int) 2 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 3 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 4 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 5 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 6 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 9 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 12 => 'Govind Goel',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri Goel',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Goel Argued',
		(int) 15 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 16 => 'Shri Goel',
		(int) 17 => 'Managing Commitlee',
		(int) 18 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 19 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 20 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 21 => 'Rickshaw',
		(int) 22 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 23 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 24 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 25 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 26 => 'Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab',
		(int) 27 => 'S.C. 1671.(7',
		(int) 28 => 'Bakhtawar Singh',
		(int) 29 => 'Taxes',
		(int) 30 => 'Mohindra',
		(int) 31 => 'N.M.',
		(int) 32 => 'Rickshawpuller',
		(int) 33 => 'Nos',
		(int) 34 => 'Ram Singh',
		(int) 35 => 'Ram Singh's',
		(int) 36 => 'Gurpal Singh',
		(int) 37 => 'Haryana'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Rules',
		(int) 2 => 'Rules',
		(int) 3 => 'Shyama'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '30.7.1980',
		(int) 1 => 'the year 1983',
		(int) 2 => 'October 8, 1990',
		(int) 3 => '28.12.1990',
		(int) 4 => '1.12.1990',
		(int) 5 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 6 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 7 => '1980',
		(int) 8 => '1980',
		(int) 9 => '4',
		(int) 10 => '6',
		(int) 11 => '1980',
		(int) 12 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 13 => 'a date earlier',
		(int) 14 => '10 years',
		(int) 15 => '1980',
		(int) 16 => '8.10.1990',
		(int) 17 => '8.6.1991',
		(int) 18 => 'Sunday',
		(int) 19 => ''11',
		(int) 20 => 'October',
		(int) 21 => ''12',
		(int) 22 => '1980',
		(int) 23 => '1961',
		(int) 24 => '1967',
		(int) 25 => '1969',
		(int) 26 => '1970',
		(int) 27 => '1972',
		(int) 28 => '1972',
		(int) 29 => '1976',
		(int) 30 => '1001.(11',
		(int) 31 => '1979',
		(int) 32 => '1975)4 S.C.C.',
		(int) 33 => '1990',
		(int) 34 => '94',
		(int) 35 => '1979',
		(int) 36 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 37 => 'ten years',
		(int) 38 => 'Sunday',
		(int) 39 => 'a date earlier',
		(int) 40 => '1989(2',
		(int) 41 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 42 => 'a period of',
		(int) 43 => 'three months'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Hindu Girls College',
		(int) 1 => 'College',
		(int) 2 => 'Managing Committee',
		(int) 3 => 'Financial',
		(int) 4 => 'Government',
		(int) 5 => 'Haryana, Department of Education',
		(int) 6 => 'Financial',
		(int) 7 => 'Education Department',
		(int) 8 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (',
		(int) 9 => 'Security of Service',
		(int) 10 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules',
		(int) 11 => 'College',
		(int) 12 => 'College',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
		(int) 14 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 15 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 16 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'Department of Education',
		(int) 19 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 20 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
		(int) 21 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 22 => 'Government',
		(int) 23 => 'the Mandal Commission',
		(int) 24 => 'a Laboratory Attendent',
		(int) 25 => 'the Managing Committee of the College',
		(int) 26 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 27 => 'the Mandal Commission Report',
		(int) 28 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 29 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 30 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 31 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 32 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 33 => 'Managing Committee',
		(int) 34 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 35 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 36 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 37 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 38 => 'DirectorThe',
		(int) 39 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 40 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 41 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 42 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 43 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 44 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 45 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 46 => 'State',
		(int) 47 => 'Mandal Commission Report',
		(int) 48 => 'the Principal of the College',
		(int) 49 => 'Shri Pawan Kumar',
		(int) 50 => 'Girls College',
		(int) 51 => 'the Girls Hostel',
		(int) 52 => 'College',
		(int) 53 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Hari Nagar Sugar Mills',
		(int) 55 => 'Ltd.v',
		(int) 56 => 'S.C. 1669.(2',
		(int) 57 => 'Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd.',
		(int) 58 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 59 => 'Bhagat Raja v. Union of India',
		(int) 60 => 'Travencore Rayon Ltd.',
		(int) 61 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 62 => 'S.C. 2083.(8',
		(int) 63 => 'Woolcombers Workers Union',
		(int) 64 => 'Siemens Engineering',
		(int) 65 => 'v. Union of India',
		(int) 66 => 'Ajantha Industries',
		(int) 67 => 'Central Board',
		(int) 68 => 'Mohindra Ltd.',
		(int) 69 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 70 => 'S.N.',
		(int) 71 => 'Testeels Ltd.',
		(int) 72 => 'Court',
		(int) 73 => 'College',
		(int) 74 => 'a Girls College',
		(int) 75 => 'College',
		(int) 76 => 'the Mandal Commission's',
		(int) 77 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 78 => 'State',
		(int) 79 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 80 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 81 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 82 => 'Court',
		(int) 83 => 'College',
		(int) 84 => 'College',
		(int) 85 => 'Court',
		(int) 86 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board',
		(int) 87 => 'College'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 1 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 2 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 4 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Kumar v. State',
		(int) 6 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 7 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 8 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 9 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 10 => 'S.C.C.',
		(int) 11 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 12 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 13 => 'Kerala',
		(int) 14 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 15 => 'J.T.',
		(int) 16 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 17 => 'duty.19'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2',
		(int) 1 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 2 => '4.4.1991',
		(int) 3 => '29.7.1991',
		(int) 4 => '22.4.1992',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => '7',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => 'one',
		(int) 9 => '2',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '2',
		(int) 12 => '6.10.1990,(c',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '2',
		(int) 15 => 'one',
		(int) 16 => '4(4',
		(int) 17 => '3',
		(int) 18 => '4(2',
		(int) 19 => '4(3',
		(int) 20 => '4(4',
		(int) 21 => '5',
		(int) 22 => '6',
		(int) 23 => '4(2',
		(int) 24 => '4(4',
		(int) 25 => '6',
		(int) 26 => '4(2)Where',
		(int) 27 => '1',
		(int) 28 => '1',
		(int) 29 => '6',
		(int) 30 => '7',
		(int) 31 => '4(2',
		(int) 32 => '28.12.1990',
		(int) 33 => 'Two',
		(int) 34 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 35 => '6.10.90',
		(int) 36 => '6.10.90',
		(int) 37 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 38 => 'two',
		(int) 39 => '2',
		(int) 40 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 41 => 'two',
		(int) 42 => '2',
		(int) 43 => '1980.13',
		(int) 44 => 'two',
		(int) 45 => '1607.(4',
		(int) 46 => '1974)3',
		(int) 47 => '318.(9',
		(int) 48 => '2',
		(int) 49 => '789.(12',
		(int) 50 => '4',
		(int) 51 => '1',
		(int) 52 => '2',
		(int) 53 => '253',
		(int) 54 => '2',
		(int) 55 => '463.20',
		(int) 56 => '2',
		(int) 57 => '2',
		(int) 58 => '2'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 2 => ''Shri Pawan Kumar Lab',
		(int) 3 => 'The Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'First',
		(int) 1 => 'Second',
		(int) 2 => 'Third',
		(int) 3 => 'Fourth',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'second',
		(int) 6 => '7th',
		(int) 7 => 'first'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the 1980 Rules',
		(int) 1 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 2 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 3 => 'S.C. 671.(3',
		(int) 4 => 'S.C. 1302.(6'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the night',
		(int) 1 => 'the night',
		(int) 2 => 'the morning',
		(int) 3 => 'the night',
		(int) 4 => 'the morning',
		(int) 5 => 'the morning'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rule 4',
		(int) 1 => 'Ride 4(4',
		(int) 2 => 'P-3',
		(int) 3 => 'Rule 4(4',
		(int) 4 => 'Rule 4(4',
		(int) 5 => 'P-3',
		(int) 6 => 'P-3',
		(int) 7 => 'P-3'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gujarat 1.15'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624635',
		'acts' => 'Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 - Rule 3 and 3(1)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 9223/1992',
		'appellant' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :3. Penalties -(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :xx xx xx xx xx' 6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. ' 7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. 8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in: 1979 Gujarat 1. 15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. 16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police -has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. 463. 20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh;',
		'citingcases' => 'xx    xx    xx    xx    xx'',
		'counselplain' => ' S.P. Jain and; Rajesh Gumber, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Govind Goel, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1995-01-10',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.S. Singhvi, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.S. Singhvi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner joined service on his appointment as Lab. Assistant on 30.7.1980 in Hindu Girls College, Sonepat, which is being managed by respondent No. 2. He was confirmed in service in the year 1983. On October 8, 1990, the petitioner was suspended. This was followed by a charge-sheet dated 28.12.1990, which was issued by the principal of the College on the basis of decision taken by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 1.12.1990. On 11.1.1991, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure R-2) before the Principal expressing regret for his conduct and requested that he may be pardoned. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 23.3.1991. The Governing Body took notice of the reply filed by the petitioner and the view that the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him. It decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. With a view to comply with the principles of natural justice, the Governing Body decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in its next meeting. On 4.4.1991, the Principal of the College issued notice (Annexure P-2) and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply in regard to the proposal of the Governing body and to express his desire as to whether he wanted to be heard personally. The petitioner expressed his desire to be heard in person. According to him that opportunity of hearing was not given by the Governing Body but he was made to appear before the Chairman of the Governing Body, who transmitted his case to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, for approval of the proposal of Managing Committee to terminate his service. The petitioner submitted representation dated 29.7.1991 (Annexure P-4) to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and prayed that the recommendation made by the Governing Body be quashed, he be exonerated of the charges and the matter be dropped. The Director, Higher Education, gave his approval to the proposal of the Governing Body regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner. On the basis of this approval, the Governing Body of the College passed resolution dated 20.11.1991 and terminated his service w.e.f. 8.10.1990. Against the approval accorded by the Director, the petitioner filed a revision petition. That too has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Haryana, Department of Education, vide his order dated 22.4.1992 (Annexure P-9).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petitioner has challenged the legality of the action taken by respondent No. 2 terminating his service, the approval accorded by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana and the dismissal of his revision petition by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department. His case is that the proceedings were held against him in violation of the provisions contained in the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979(for short, 'the Act') and the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules of 1980'). Petitioner has pleaded that the procedure prescribed in Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1980 has not been followed by the respondents before passing the order of termination of his service and that the revising authority has not passed a speaking order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In its written statement, respondent No. 2 has stated that the management of the college had received a complaint (Annexure R-1) from one Maha Singh Sharma alleging that the petitioner, who was in drunken state on 7.10.1990, had misbehaved with him when the complainant had visited the college to enquire as to when the college will re-open. The petitioner was immediately sent for medical examination and he was found to be under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.10.1990. Thereafter, the Governing Body decided to charge-sheet the petitioner. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner made a statement in writing admitting the allegations. The Governing Body considered the entire matter and resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the gravity of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner's service be terminated. Nevertheless the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing. He appeared before the President of the College and prayed that a lenient view be taken. The matter was considered by the President of the College and he directed that the proposal for termination of the petitioner's service under Section 7 of the Act be sent. Representation made by the petitioner against that proposal was considered by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, who approved the proposal. Thereafter, a decision was taken in the meeting of the Governing Body held on 20.11.1991 to terminate the petitioner's service and that decision was conveyed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is commensurate with the allegation of misconduct found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First argument of Shri S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. 2 to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in spite of his admission that he had consumed alcohol. Learned counsel argued that under Rule 4(4) of the 1980 Rules, it is the duty of the Managing Committee to record a finding on the charge levelled against the employee and as no such finding was recorded in the case of the petitioner, entire proceeding leading to the award of punishment is vitiated. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Third argument of Shri Jain is that the orders passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and the Secretary, Department of Education, are non-speaking, inasmuch as neither of these authorities has applied its mind to the various contentions raised by the petitioner and have not assigned reasons for approving the proposal of the Managing Committee to terminate the service of the petitioner and reject his revision petition. Fourth contention raised by Shri S.P. Jain is that termination of service with retrospective effect is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as respondent No. 2 was not entitled to bring an end the relationship of master and servant with effect from a date earlier than the date of issue of order. Lastly, Shri Jain argued that neither the Managing Committee nor the Director, Higher Education, considered the past record of the petitioner and his length of service while awarding the extreme penalty resulting in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood. Shri Jain pointed out that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner has been magnified beyond all proportions by alleging that the petitioner had consumed liquor while in service of a girls college and while doing so all the authorities have ignored the following facts :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the petitioner had admitted the consumption of liquor on 6.10.1990, but he had stated that liquor was consumed by him at his home due to adverse family circumstances,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) That he was away from his home in the night of 6.10.1990,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) That he was brought to the college by a rickshaw puller,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) That the college was closed due to holidays on 7.10.1990 and even other-wise the college was not functioning due to agitation of students in connection with Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission regarding reservation,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) That the petitioner was merely a Laboratory Attendent and was not connected with the security duty in the college,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) That the petitioner had a clean record of service of over 10 years and his conduct of consuming liquor was an isolated instance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Govind Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, argued that after a proper inquiry held in accordance with Rule 4 and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 decided to punish the petitioner for his grave misconduct involving consumption of liquor and misbehaviour with guardian of one of the students. Shri Goel vehemently argued that the singular act of the petitioner to consume the liquor was sufficient to dismiss him from service and the Managing Committee of the College has duly taken note of the admissions made by the petitioner while holding him guilty of the allegations levelled against him. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. He pointed out that the Director, Higher Education, examined all the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation and found no merit in the same and, therefore, the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, should be treated as a speaking order. Shri Goel argued that even though 7.10.1990 might be a holiday and college might be not functioning due to agitation in connection with the Mandal Commission Report, the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner cannot be diluted on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Penalties -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :-xx xx xx xx xx'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. Rule 4(2) contemplates preparation of the charge-sheet. Rule 4(3) speaks of delivery to the employee a copy of the articles of charges, the statement of allegations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be substantiated. The employee is required to be called upon to submit a written statement of defence and express his desire whether he wants to be heard in person. Rule 4(4) contemplates action required to be taken by the Managing Committee on receipt of the written statement of defence. Various other Sub-rules of Rule 4 lay down the procedure to be followed in the conduct of inquiry. Rule 5 speaks of the action which the Managing Committee is entitled to take on the inquiry report. Rule 6 provides for the action to be taken by the Director on receipt of the proposal from the Managing Committee. Rule 7 provides for passing of a detailed order by the Managing Committee on receipt of the approval from the Director. Rule 4(2), 4(4), 6 and 7 can usefully be quoted below for proper appreciation of the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Rule 4(2)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Where it is proposed to proceed against an employee for the award of major punishment the Managing Committee shall draw up-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) a statement of allegations on which each charge is based including the statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the employee,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be substantiated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 4(4)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into such of the articles of charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose, and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the employee in his written statement of defence, the Managing Committee shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it. may think fit and shall act in the manner hereinafter laid down in these rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the employee within the specified period, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Where the Managing Committee itself inquires into the articles of charges or appoints an inquiry officer for holding an inquiry into such charges, it may, by order, appoint a presenting officer to present, on its behalf, the case in support of the articles of charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 6, Action by Director</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Director, on receipt of such proposal and representation, if any, may, after examining the record and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard by an order in writing give him approval to the imposition of the proposed punishment or refuse to give approval, if the proposal is found to be mala fide or by way of victimisation or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 7. Order by Managing Commitlee-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the approval of the Director, the Managing Committee shall pass an order in detail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. In terms of Rule 4(2) the Managing Committee is required to draw up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges.In terms of Ride 4(4), the Managing Committee is required to record its finding on each charge where articles of charges have been admitted by the employee. While recording finding on each charge, the Managing Committee is entitled to take such evidence as it considers appropriate. It shall then proceed in accordance with other Rules. The Director to whom a proposal is required to be forwarded by the Managing Committee in terms of Rule 5(3)(b), (c) and (d), has to consider the proposal of the Managing Committee together with representation of the employee and then - give approval or refuse to give approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee. For arriving at his decision, the Director is free to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him. He brought this fact to the notice of the President of the College. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the hospital and he was found to be under the influence of alcohol. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8.10.1990. The Governing Body of the college decided to serve a charge-sheet upon the petitioner which was issued on 28.12.1990. Two allegations were levelled against the petitioner. The first one was that the petitioner was found drunken in the reception room on the main gate of the college on 7.10.1990. The second one was that the petitioner had misbehaved with Maha Singh Sharma. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.1.1991 in which he admitted the consumption of liquor. The circumstances in which the petitioner consumed the liquor and was found in the reception room at the college gate have been enumerated in his reply which reads:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In this regard I stated that on the night of 6.10.90, I consumed alcohol in excess quantity on account of some problem at my house. Therefore, I could not regain senses till the morning of 7.10.1990 and I remained out of my house during the night of 6.10.90. In the morning, I was brought to the college gate by Rickshaw puller. Thereupon I remained lying in the reception room. I 'feel sorry for my misconduct during this period and I assure you that such mistake will not be repeated nor I have conducted such mistake in the past. Therefore, I request that I may be pardoned. I shall be grateful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, it is significant to observe that in his complaint Maha Singh Sharma did not state that he was a guardian of the girl student. Another significant feature which emerges from the complaint is that Maha Singh Sharma had come to enquire as to when the college will re-open. This indicates that the college was closed on 7.10.1990. It is also significant to note that though Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him under the influence of liquor, he did not indicate as to in what manner the petitioner misbehaved with him. No particulars of the allegation of the misbehaviour have been given in the statement of imputation (Annexure P-1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. After the petitioner had expressed his regret in his letter dated 11.1.1991, the Government Body resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the admissions made by the petitioner, he deserves to be removed from the service. However, at the time it was decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This opportunity of personal hearing was admittedly not given to the petitioner by the Governing Body but by the Chairman of the Government Body as is evident from Annexure P-3 dated 8.6.1991. Before the Director of Higher Education to whom the proposal was sent by the Chairman, the petitioner had pleaded that the college was closed on 7.10.1990 due to Sunday and almost all educational institution were closed in the State due to agitation on Mandal Commission Report. He also pointed out the circumstances under which he consumed liquor. He further stated that when a person came to him to enquire about the re-opening of the college, he had told him to enquire from the Principal of the College and upon this the said person felt offended. He submitted that his confession was secured by the President of the Government Body under immense pressure. The petitioner also stated that no inquiry was held against him and no opportunity of personal hearing was not given to him. What the Director of Higher Education did was that he considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner and two pleas raised by the petitioner in his written statement, namely, that his confessions were secured under pressure and that there were procedural infirmities in the action of the management. Thereafter, the Director recorded his conclusion in the following words:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I have considered the submission made by both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. The facts of misconduct against Shri Pawan Kumar stand proved. Such acts of misconduct on the part of an employee of Girls College needs to be taken seriously. I, therefore, approve the proposal of the management regarding the termination of services of 'Shri Pawan Kumar Lab. Assistant. The management may pass further orders as per provisions of the rules.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Secretary to whom the revision petition was preferred by the petitioner dismissed the same with the following observations:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find from the explanation submitted by the petitioner that he had admitted being drunk and not being in control of his senses on the morning of 7th October. He has also admitted that he was present in the campus although he denied that he was in the office room. Thus, the main charge that the petitioner was found drunk in the premises of the Girls Hostel, has been admitted by the petitioner. I agree with the view of the management that special pre-cautions have to be taken in the case of any mis-behaviour in the campus of a hostel meant for girls. The petitioner, as a member of the College staff, should not have got drunk and gone to the college hostel premises even if he had gone only as far as the lawn of the hostel. This kind of incident can create an adverse view in the public about the security in the girls hostel and this no college management can afford to ignore. I, therefore, find no merit in the petition and reject the appeal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The argument of Shri Jain that respondent No. 2 did not comply with the provisions of Rule 4(4) is, in my opinion, without force. The Governing Body of the College did consider the reply dated 11.1.1991 filed by the petitioner and recorded a finding that the petitioner has confessed his guilty regarding both the charges. Whether the ultimate action taken by the Governing Body to terminate the service of the petitioner is legally sustainable or not, this much is evident from perusal of Annexure R-3 that the Governing Body did consider the reply of the petitioner and recorded its conclusion in respect of the two charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 contravened Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 1980.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. However, two serious infirmities with which the action taken by the respondents suffer and to which detailed reference would be made hereinafter have the effect of vitiating the action of the respondents in bringing about an end to the service of the petitioner. The first infirmity is that after having decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the Government Body did not in fact give such an opportunity to the petitioner. In this context reference to Annexure R-3 is once again necessary. A look at that document shows that the Governing Body unequivocally resolved to hear the petitioner personally before taking a final decision. However, when the stage reached for giving personal hearing to the petitioner, the Chairman and not the Governing body heard the petitioner. This fact is proved from Annexure P-3. The Government Body consists of the Chairman and members and, therefore, hearing given by the Chairman cannot be equated with a hearing by the Governing Body. It was quite possible for the Governing Body to have taken a different view of the misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner in the light of his personal explanation. Therefore, the hearing given to the petitioner by the Chairman will have to be treated as no hearing in the eye of law. Logically, it must be held that the decision taken by the Chairman vide Annexure P-3 was contrary to the rule of natural justice. It is irrelevant that no provision exists in the Rules for giving an opportunity of personal hearing by the Governing Body/Managing Committee. Having suo moto decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing, the Government Body could have not ignored its own decision. This breach of the principles of natural justice coupled with another equally serious legal infirmity does have the effect of invalidating the impugned action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Rule 3(1) read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1980 shows that on the basis of the inquiry held in terms of Rule 4 and consideration made by the Director, Higher Education, the competent authority has to pass a detailed order and such order has to be a speaking order. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This provision is in substance a statutory incorporation of the principles of natural justice. It is one of the settled principles of administrative law that every quasi-judicial authority must pass a speaking order, The duty to act judicially is integral part of exercise of quasi judicial functions by every public authority. Such authority is under an obligation to demonstrate that it has acted judicially and fairly. This is possible only when its decision is reasoned one, i.e. the order passed by such authority contains reasons. Requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been treated as an essential feature of the concept of natural justice. Only in the cases of express exclusion or some compelling situation in which this requirement can be read as impliedly excluded, an order passed by the quasi-judicial authority is liable to be nullified if it does not contain reasons. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd.v. Shyama Sunder Jhunjhunwala, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1669.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1607.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Travencore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) III S.C.C.868.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1302.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2083.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, (1974)3 S.C.C. 318.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Siemens Engineering and . v. Union of India, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 981.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Director Taxes, (1976)1 S.C.C. 1001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 789.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Rama Verma Bharathan Tharpuram v. State of Kerala, (1975)4 S.C.C. 782</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(13) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 S.C.C. 94, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14) Testeels Ltd. v. N.M. Desai, A.I.R. 1979 Gujarat 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. Such consideration would necessarily include consideration of the allegations of misconduct, reply filed by the delinquent employee, the evidence, if any, collected during the course of inquiry and the representation, if any, submitted by the delinquent. For determining the quantum of punishment these authorities will also have to consider the length of service of the employee, his past record, the nature of misconduct and its impact on the service. A decision taken by the competent authority after due consideration of these factors will ordinarily be immuned from interference by the Courts. However, if the competent authority fails to apply its mind or it is found that the competent authority was influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations or the reasons recorded by such authority are wholly insufficient for awarding a particular punishment, the Court will be entitled to quash such decision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. These authorities were greatly influenced by the singular fact that the petitioner who was in the service of a Girls College, had consumed liquor and had allegedly misbehaved with a person who had made some enquiry from him regarding the reopening of the College. The statement of the petitioner that he had consumed liquor at his house on 6.10.1990 and that he was brought at the college gate on 7.10.1990 by a Rickshawpuller and he was lying in the reception room has altogether been overlooked. It has also been overlooked that 7.10.1990 was a holiday and the college was otherwise also closed on account of agitation of the students in connection with reservation policy of the Government and the Mandal Commission's report. It has also been ignored that the petitioner had rendered ten years unblemished service and that he was not on duty on 7.10.1990. Non-consideration of these material factors is sufficient to give rise to an inference that neither of the authorities had adverted their attention to the relevant considerations before taking a decision to terminate the service of the petitioner. It must, therefore, be held that the action taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. Rather there has been a non-consideration of many important factors which were required to be taken note of by the competent authorities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State Punjab v. Ram Singh, J.T. 1992(4) S.C. 253, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in support of his argument that the petitioner was guilty of gravest misconduct, is of little assistance to the case of that respondent. That was a case in which a member of the police force was found heavily drunk while on duties. He became uncontrollable and was seen roaming or wandering in the market with service revolver. In that background the Supreme Court held that the authorities were fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police - has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. In that very case, the Supreme Court did observe that taking to drink by itself may not be a misconduct and out of office hours one may take drink and remain in the house. This shows that even the apex Court has recognised that taking of drink by a person while he is not on duty is by itself not sufficient to charge him with the allegation of misconduct but taking to drink while on duty has to be viewed seriously. In so far as the case in hand is concerned there is no allegation that the petitioner had consumed liquor while on duty or he come to the College to perform his duties after consuming liquor. Rather it is an admitted position that the College was closed on 7.10.1990 on account of Sunday and also that various educational institutions were already closed due to anti-reservation agitation. Therefore, the principle laid down in Ram Singh's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. At the cost of repetition, it need be mentioned that the petitioner had con- sumed liquor at his home on 6.10.1990. He was not on duty at that time and even on 7.10.1990 he was not on duty. Therefore, his case cannot be treated as similar to the case of a police constable who was found in a drunken state while on duty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Another reason for not sustaining the impugned action is that the employer has terminated the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect. Termination of service can operate prospectively and not from a date earlier than the date of order. This proposition finds support from the judgment in this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh, 1989(2) R.S.J. 463.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Commissioner was under the impression that the petitioner had consumed liquor in the college and then had gone to the College-hostel premises. This was not even the allegation levelled against the petitioner by the management. No evidence was placed on record to show that the petitioner had gone to the hostel premises. Therefore, it must be held that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government decided the revision petition more on conjectures and assumptions rather on the material placed before him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order (Annexure P-5) and resolution (Annexure P-7) are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. The Director, Higher Education, Haryana, is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of proposal sent to him by respondent No. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment. During the intervening period, i.e. from 20.11.1991 till the date of fresh order, the petitioner shall be treated under suspension. It shall be for the Director to take a final decision regarding the treatment to be meted for the period of suspension. After receipt of the order from the Director, respondent No. 2 shall pass necessary order. Appropriate action in this regard shall be taken by the Director, Higher Education, and respondent No. 2 within a period of three months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1995)110PLR506',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624635'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 2 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 3 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 7 of the Act',
			(int) 7 => 'Rule 4',
			(int) 8 => 'The Governing Body of the college',
			(int) 9 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 10 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 11 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 12 => 'the Governing Body/Managing Committee',
			(int) 13 => 'Rule 4',
			(int) 14 => 'the Governing Body (Annexure',
			(int) 15 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 16 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 17 => 'P-5'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ORDERG.S. Singhvi',
			(int) 1 => 'Principal',
			(int) 2 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 3 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 4 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 5 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 6 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 9 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 12 => 'Govind Goel',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri Goel',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Goel Argued',
			(int) 15 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 16 => 'Shri Goel',
			(int) 17 => 'Managing Commitlee',
			(int) 18 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 19 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 20 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 21 => 'Rickshaw',
			(int) 22 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 23 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 24 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
			(int) 25 => 'Shri Jain',
			(int) 26 => 'Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab',
			(int) 27 => 'S.C. 1671.(7',
			(int) 28 => 'Bakhtawar Singh',
			(int) 29 => 'Taxes',
			(int) 30 => 'Mohindra',
			(int) 31 => 'N.M.',
			(int) 32 => 'Rickshawpuller',
			(int) 33 => 'Nos',
			(int) 34 => 'Ram Singh',
			(int) 35 => 'Ram Singh's',
			(int) 36 => 'Gurpal Singh',
			(int) 37 => 'Haryana'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Rules',
			(int) 2 => 'Rules',
			(int) 3 => 'Shyama'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '30.7.1980',
			(int) 1 => 'the year 1983',
			(int) 2 => 'October 8, 1990',
			(int) 3 => '28.12.1990',
			(int) 4 => '1.12.1990',
			(int) 5 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 6 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 7 => '1980',
			(int) 8 => '1980',
			(int) 9 => '4',
			(int) 10 => '6',
			(int) 11 => '1980',
			(int) 12 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 13 => 'a date earlier',
			(int) 14 => '10 years',
			(int) 15 => '1980',
			(int) 16 => '8.10.1990',
			(int) 17 => '8.6.1991',
			(int) 18 => 'Sunday',
			(int) 19 => ''11',
			(int) 20 => 'October',
			(int) 21 => ''12',
			(int) 22 => '1980',
			(int) 23 => '1961',
			(int) 24 => '1967',
			(int) 25 => '1969',
			(int) 26 => '1970',
			(int) 27 => '1972',
			(int) 28 => '1972',
			(int) 29 => '1976',
			(int) 30 => '1001.(11',
			(int) 31 => '1979',
			(int) 32 => '1975)4 S.C.C.',
			(int) 33 => '1990',
			(int) 34 => '94',
			(int) 35 => '1979',
			(int) 36 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 37 => 'ten years',
			(int) 38 => 'Sunday',
			(int) 39 => 'a date earlier',
			(int) 40 => '1989(2',
			(int) 41 => '20.11.1991',
			(int) 42 => 'a period of',
			(int) 43 => 'three months'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Hindu Girls College',
			(int) 1 => 'College',
			(int) 2 => 'Managing Committee',
			(int) 3 => 'Financial',
			(int) 4 => 'Government',
			(int) 5 => 'Haryana, Department of Education',
			(int) 6 => 'Financial',
			(int) 7 => 'Education Department',
			(int) 8 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (',
			(int) 9 => 'Security of Service',
			(int) 10 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules',
			(int) 11 => 'College',
			(int) 12 => 'College',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
			(int) 14 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 15 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 16 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'Department of Education',
			(int) 19 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 20 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
			(int) 21 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 22 => 'Government',
			(int) 23 => 'the Mandal Commission',
			(int) 24 => 'a Laboratory Attendent',
			(int) 25 => 'the Managing Committee of the College',
			(int) 26 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 27 => 'the Mandal Commission Report',
			(int) 28 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 29 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 30 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 31 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 32 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 33 => 'Managing Committee',
			(int) 34 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 35 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 36 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 37 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 38 => 'DirectorThe',
			(int) 39 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 40 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 41 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 42 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 43 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 44 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 45 => 'the Managing Committee',
			(int) 46 => 'State',
			(int) 47 => 'Mandal Commission Report',
			(int) 48 => 'the Principal of the College',
			(int) 49 => 'Shri Pawan Kumar',
			(int) 50 => 'Girls College',
			(int) 51 => 'the Girls Hostel',
			(int) 52 => 'College',
			(int) 53 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Hari Nagar Sugar Mills',
			(int) 55 => 'Ltd.v',
			(int) 56 => 'S.C. 1669.(2',
			(int) 57 => 'Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd.',
			(int) 58 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 59 => 'Bhagat Raja v. Union of India',
			(int) 60 => 'Travencore Rayon Ltd.',
			(int) 61 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 62 => 'S.C. 2083.(8',
			(int) 63 => 'Woolcombers Workers Union',
			(int) 64 => 'Siemens Engineering',
			(int) 65 => 'v. Union of India',
			(int) 66 => 'Ajantha Industries',
			(int) 67 => 'Central Board',
			(int) 68 => 'Mohindra Ltd.',
			(int) 69 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 70 => 'S.N.',
			(int) 71 => 'Testeels Ltd.',
			(int) 72 => 'Court',
			(int) 73 => 'College',
			(int) 74 => 'a Girls College',
			(int) 75 => 'College',
			(int) 76 => 'the Mandal Commission's',
			(int) 77 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 78 => 'State',
			(int) 79 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 80 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 81 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 82 => 'Court',
			(int) 83 => 'College',
			(int) 84 => 'College',
			(int) 85 => 'Court',
			(int) 86 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board',
			(int) 87 => 'College'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 1 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 2 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 4 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Kumar v. State',
			(int) 6 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 7 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 8 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 9 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 10 => 'S.C.C.',
			(int) 11 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 12 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 13 => 'Kerala',
			(int) 14 => 'A.I.R.',
			(int) 15 => 'J.T.',
			(int) 16 => 'S.C.',
			(int) 17 => 'duty.19'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2',
			(int) 1 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 2 => '4.4.1991',
			(int) 3 => '29.7.1991',
			(int) 4 => '22.4.1992',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => '7',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => 'one',
			(int) 9 => '2',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '2',
			(int) 12 => '6.10.1990,(c',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '2',
			(int) 15 => 'one',
			(int) 16 => '4(4',
			(int) 17 => '3',
			(int) 18 => '4(2',
			(int) 19 => '4(3',
			(int) 20 => '4(4',
			(int) 21 => '5',
			(int) 22 => '6',
			(int) 23 => '4(2',
			(int) 24 => '4(4',
			(int) 25 => '6',
			(int) 26 => '4(2)Where',
			(int) 27 => '1',
			(int) 28 => '1',
			(int) 29 => '6',
			(int) 30 => '7',
			(int) 31 => '4(2',
			(int) 32 => '28.12.1990',
			(int) 33 => 'Two',
			(int) 34 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 35 => '6.10.90',
			(int) 36 => '6.10.90',
			(int) 37 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 38 => 'two',
			(int) 39 => '2',
			(int) 40 => '11.1.1991',
			(int) 41 => 'two',
			(int) 42 => '2',
			(int) 43 => '1980.13',
			(int) 44 => 'two',
			(int) 45 => '1607.(4',
			(int) 46 => '1974)3',
			(int) 47 => '318.(9',
			(int) 48 => '2',
			(int) 49 => '789.(12',
			(int) 50 => '4',
			(int) 51 => '1',
			(int) 52 => '2',
			(int) 53 => '253',
			(int) 54 => '2',
			(int) 55 => '463.20',
			(int) 56 => '2',
			(int) 57 => '2',
			(int) 58 => '2'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body',
			(int) 2 => ''Shri Pawan Kumar Lab',
			(int) 3 => 'The Governing Body of the College',
			(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'First',
			(int) 1 => 'Second',
			(int) 2 => 'Third',
			(int) 3 => 'Fourth',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'second',
			(int) 6 => '7th',
			(int) 7 => 'first'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the 1980 Rules',
			(int) 1 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 2 => '23.3.1991',
			(int) 3 => 'S.C. 671.(3',
			(int) 4 => 'S.C. 1302.(6'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the night',
			(int) 1 => 'the night',
			(int) 2 => 'the morning',
			(int) 3 => 'the night',
			(int) 4 => 'the morning',
			(int) 5 => 'the morning'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rule 4',
			(int) 1 => 'Ride 4(4',
			(int) 2 => 'P-3',
			(int) 3 => 'Rule 4(4',
			(int) 4 => 'Rule 4(4',
			(int) 5 => 'P-3',
			(int) 6 => 'P-3',
			(int) 7 => 'P-3'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gujarat 1.15'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624635',
			'acts' => 'Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 - Rule 3 and 3(1)',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 9223/1992',
			'appellant' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :3. Penalties -(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :xx xx xx xx xx' 6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. ' 7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. 8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in: 1979 Gujarat 1. 15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. 16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police -has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. 463. 20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh;',
			'citingcases' => 'xx    xx    xx    xx    xx'',
			'counselplain' => ' S.P. Jain and; Rajesh Gumber, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Govind Goel, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1995-01-10',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.S. Singhvi, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.S. Singhvi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner joined service on his appointment as Lab. Assistant on 30.7.1980 in Hindu Girls College, Sonepat, which is being managed by respondent No. 2. He was confirmed in service in the year 1983. On October 8, 1990, the petitioner was suspended. This was followed by a charge-sheet dated 28.12.1990, which was issued by the principal of the College on the basis of decision taken by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 1.12.1990. On 11.1.1991, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure R-2) before the Principal expressing regret for his conduct and requested that he may be pardoned. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 23.3.1991. The Governing Body took notice of the reply filed by the petitioner and the view that the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him. It decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. With a view to comply with the principles of natural justice, the Governing Body decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in its next meeting. On 4.4.1991, the Principal of the College issued notice (Annexure P-2) and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply in regard to the proposal of the Governing body and to express his desire as to whether he wanted to be heard personally. The petitioner expressed his desire to be heard in person. According to him that opportunity of hearing was not given by the Governing Body but he was made to appear before the Chairman of the Governing Body, who transmitted his case to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, for approval of the proposal of Managing Committee to terminate his service. The petitioner submitted representation dated 29.7.1991 (Annexure P-4) to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and prayed that the recommendation made by the Governing Body be quashed, he be exonerated of the charges and the matter be dropped. The Director, Higher Education, gave his approval to the proposal of the Governing Body regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner. On the basis of this approval, the Governing Body of the College passed resolution dated 20.11.1991 and terminated his service w.e.f. 8.10.1990. Against the approval accorded by the Director, the petitioner filed a revision petition. That too has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Haryana, Department of Education, vide his order dated 22.4.1992 (Annexure P-9).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petitioner has challenged the legality of the action taken by respondent No. 2 terminating his service, the approval accorded by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana and the dismissal of his revision petition by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department. His case is that the proceedings were held against him in violation of the provisions contained in the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979(for short, 'the Act') and the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules of 1980'). Petitioner has pleaded that the procedure prescribed in Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1980 has not been followed by the respondents before passing the order of termination of his service and that the revising authority has not passed a speaking order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In its written statement, respondent No. 2 has stated that the management of the college had received a complaint (Annexure R-1) from one Maha Singh Sharma alleging that the petitioner, who was in drunken state on 7.10.1990, had misbehaved with him when the complainant had visited the college to enquire as to when the college will re-open. The petitioner was immediately sent for medical examination and he was found to be under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.10.1990. Thereafter, the Governing Body decided to charge-sheet the petitioner. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner made a statement in writing admitting the allegations. The Governing Body considered the entire matter and resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the gravity of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner's service be terminated. Nevertheless the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing. He appeared before the President of the College and prayed that a lenient view be taken. The matter was considered by the President of the College and he directed that the proposal for termination of the petitioner's service under Section 7 of the Act be sent. Representation made by the petitioner against that proposal was considered by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, who approved the proposal. Thereafter, a decision was taken in the meeting of the Governing Body held on 20.11.1991 to terminate the petitioner's service and that decision was conveyed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is commensurate with the allegation of misconduct found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First argument of Shri S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. 2 to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in spite of his admission that he had consumed alcohol. Learned counsel argued that under Rule 4(4) of the 1980 Rules, it is the duty of the Managing Committee to record a finding on the charge levelled against the employee and as no such finding was recorded in the case of the petitioner, entire proceeding leading to the award of punishment is vitiated. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Third argument of Shri Jain is that the orders passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and the Secretary, Department of Education, are non-speaking, inasmuch as neither of these authorities has applied its mind to the various contentions raised by the petitioner and have not assigned reasons for approving the proposal of the Managing Committee to terminate the service of the petitioner and reject his revision petition. Fourth contention raised by Shri S.P. Jain is that termination of service with retrospective effect is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as respondent No. 2 was not entitled to bring an end the relationship of master and servant with effect from a date earlier than the date of issue of order. Lastly, Shri Jain argued that neither the Managing Committee nor the Director, Higher Education, considered the past record of the petitioner and his length of service while awarding the extreme penalty resulting in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood. Shri Jain pointed out that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner has been magnified beyond all proportions by alleging that the petitioner had consumed liquor while in service of a girls college and while doing so all the authorities have ignored the following facts :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the petitioner had admitted the consumption of liquor on 6.10.1990, but he had stated that liquor was consumed by him at his home due to adverse family circumstances,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) That he was away from his home in the night of 6.10.1990,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) That he was brought to the college by a rickshaw puller,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) That the college was closed due to holidays on 7.10.1990 and even other-wise the college was not functioning due to agitation of students in connection with Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission regarding reservation,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) That the petitioner was merely a Laboratory Attendent and was not connected with the security duty in the college,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) That the petitioner had a clean record of service of over 10 years and his conduct of consuming liquor was an isolated instance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Govind Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, argued that after a proper inquiry held in accordance with Rule 4 and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 decided to punish the petitioner for his grave misconduct involving consumption of liquor and misbehaviour with guardian of one of the students. Shri Goel vehemently argued that the singular act of the petitioner to consume the liquor was sufficient to dismiss him from service and the Managing Committee of the College has duly taken note of the admissions made by the petitioner while holding him guilty of the allegations levelled against him. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. He pointed out that the Director, Higher Education, examined all the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation and found no merit in the same and, therefore, the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, should be treated as a speaking order. Shri Goel argued that even though 7.10.1990 might be a holiday and college might be not functioning due to agitation in connection with the Mandal Commission Report, the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner cannot be diluted on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Penalties -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :-xx xx xx xx xx'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. Rule 4(2) contemplates preparation of the charge-sheet. Rule 4(3) speaks of delivery to the employee a copy of the articles of charges, the statement of allegations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be substantiated. The employee is required to be called upon to submit a written statement of defence and express his desire whether he wants to be heard in person. Rule 4(4) contemplates action required to be taken by the Managing Committee on receipt of the written statement of defence. Various other Sub-rules of Rule 4 lay down the procedure to be followed in the conduct of inquiry. Rule 5 speaks of the action which the Managing Committee is entitled to take on the inquiry report. Rule 6 provides for the action to be taken by the Director on receipt of the proposal from the Managing Committee. Rule 7 provides for passing of a detailed order by the Managing Committee on receipt of the approval from the Director. Rule 4(2), 4(4), 6 and 7 can usefully be quoted below for proper appreciation of the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Rule 4(2)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Where it is proposed to proceed against an employee for the award of major punishment the Managing Committee shall draw up-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) a statement of allegations on which each charge is based including the statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the employee,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be substantiated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 4(4)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into such of the articles of charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose, and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the employee in his written statement of defence, the Managing Committee shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it. may think fit and shall act in the manner hereinafter laid down in these rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the employee within the specified period, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Where the Managing Committee itself inquires into the articles of charges or appoints an inquiry officer for holding an inquiry into such charges, it may, by order, appoint a presenting officer to present, on its behalf, the case in support of the articles of charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 6, Action by Director</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Director, on receipt of such proposal and representation, if any, may, after examining the record and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard by an order in writing give him approval to the imposition of the proposed punishment or refuse to give approval, if the proposal is found to be mala fide or by way of victimisation or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 7. Order by Managing Commitlee-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the approval of the Director, the Managing Committee shall pass an order in detail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. In terms of Rule 4(2) the Managing Committee is required to draw up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges.In terms of Ride 4(4), the Managing Committee is required to record its finding on each charge where articles of charges have been admitted by the employee. While recording finding on each charge, the Managing Committee is entitled to take such evidence as it considers appropriate. It shall then proceed in accordance with other Rules. The Director to whom a proposal is required to be forwarded by the Managing Committee in terms of Rule 5(3)(b), (c) and (d), has to consider the proposal of the Managing Committee together with representation of the employee and then - give approval or refuse to give approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee. For arriving at his decision, the Director is free to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him. He brought this fact to the notice of the President of the College. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the hospital and he was found to be under the influence of alcohol. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8.10.1990. The Governing Body of the college decided to serve a charge-sheet upon the petitioner which was issued on 28.12.1990. Two allegations were levelled against the petitioner. The first one was that the petitioner was found drunken in the reception room on the main gate of the college on 7.10.1990. The second one was that the petitioner had misbehaved with Maha Singh Sharma. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.1.1991 in which he admitted the consumption of liquor. The circumstances in which the petitioner consumed the liquor and was found in the reception room at the college gate have been enumerated in his reply which reads:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In this regard I stated that on the night of 6.10.90, I consumed alcohol in excess quantity on account of some problem at my house. Therefore, I could not regain senses till the morning of 7.10.1990 and I remained out of my house during the night of 6.10.90. In the morning, I was brought to the college gate by Rickshaw puller. Thereupon I remained lying in the reception room. I 'feel sorry for my misconduct during this period and I assure you that such mistake will not be repeated nor I have conducted such mistake in the past. Therefore, I request that I may be pardoned. I shall be grateful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, it is significant to observe that in his complaint Maha Singh Sharma did not state that he was a guardian of the girl student. Another significant feature which emerges from the complaint is that Maha Singh Sharma had come to enquire as to when the college will re-open. This indicates that the college was closed on 7.10.1990. It is also significant to note that though Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him under the influence of liquor, he did not indicate as to in what manner the petitioner misbehaved with him. No particulars of the allegation of the misbehaviour have been given in the statement of imputation (Annexure P-1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. After the petitioner had expressed his regret in his letter dated 11.1.1991, the Government Body resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the admissions made by the petitioner, he deserves to be removed from the service. However, at the time it was decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This opportunity of personal hearing was admittedly not given to the petitioner by the Governing Body but by the Chairman of the Government Body as is evident from Annexure P-3 dated 8.6.1991. Before the Director of Higher Education to whom the proposal was sent by the Chairman, the petitioner had pleaded that the college was closed on 7.10.1990 due to Sunday and almost all educational institution were closed in the State due to agitation on Mandal Commission Report. He also pointed out the circumstances under which he consumed liquor. He further stated that when a person came to him to enquire about the re-opening of the college, he had told him to enquire from the Principal of the College and upon this the said person felt offended. He submitted that his confession was secured by the President of the Government Body under immense pressure. The petitioner also stated that no inquiry was held against him and no opportunity of personal hearing was not given to him. What the Director of Higher Education did was that he considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner and two pleas raised by the petitioner in his written statement, namely, that his confessions were secured under pressure and that there were procedural infirmities in the action of the management. Thereafter, the Director recorded his conclusion in the following words:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I have considered the submission made by both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. The facts of misconduct against Shri Pawan Kumar stand proved. Such acts of misconduct on the part of an employee of Girls College needs to be taken seriously. I, therefore, approve the proposal of the management regarding the termination of services of 'Shri Pawan Kumar Lab. Assistant. The management may pass further orders as per provisions of the rules.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Secretary to whom the revision petition was preferred by the petitioner dismissed the same with the following observations:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find from the explanation submitted by the petitioner that he had admitted being drunk and not being in control of his senses on the morning of 7th October. He has also admitted that he was present in the campus although he denied that he was in the office room. Thus, the main charge that the petitioner was found drunk in the premises of the Girls Hostel, has been admitted by the petitioner. I agree with the view of the management that special pre-cautions have to be taken in the case of any mis-behaviour in the campus of a hostel meant for girls. The petitioner, as a member of the College staff, should not have got drunk and gone to the college hostel premises even if he had gone only as far as the lawn of the hostel. This kind of incident can create an adverse view in the public about the security in the girls hostel and this no college management can afford to ignore. I, therefore, find no merit in the petition and reject the appeal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The argument of Shri Jain that respondent No. 2 did not comply with the provisions of Rule 4(4) is, in my opinion, without force. The Governing Body of the College did consider the reply dated 11.1.1991 filed by the petitioner and recorded a finding that the petitioner has confessed his guilty regarding both the charges. Whether the ultimate action taken by the Governing Body to terminate the service of the petitioner is legally sustainable or not, this much is evident from perusal of Annexure R-3 that the Governing Body did consider the reply of the petitioner and recorded its conclusion in respect of the two charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 contravened Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 1980.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. However, two serious infirmities with which the action taken by the respondents suffer and to which detailed reference would be made hereinafter have the effect of vitiating the action of the respondents in bringing about an end to the service of the petitioner. The first infirmity is that after having decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the Government Body did not in fact give such an opportunity to the petitioner. In this context reference to Annexure R-3 is once again necessary. A look at that document shows that the Governing Body unequivocally resolved to hear the petitioner personally before taking a final decision. However, when the stage reached for giving personal hearing to the petitioner, the Chairman and not the Governing body heard the petitioner. This fact is proved from Annexure P-3. The Government Body consists of the Chairman and members and, therefore, hearing given by the Chairman cannot be equated with a hearing by the Governing Body. It was quite possible for the Governing Body to have taken a different view of the misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner in the light of his personal explanation. Therefore, the hearing given to the petitioner by the Chairman will have to be treated as no hearing in the eye of law. Logically, it must be held that the decision taken by the Chairman vide Annexure P-3 was contrary to the rule of natural justice. It is irrelevant that no provision exists in the Rules for giving an opportunity of personal hearing by the Governing Body/Managing Committee. Having suo moto decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing, the Government Body could have not ignored its own decision. This breach of the principles of natural justice coupled with another equally serious legal infirmity does have the effect of invalidating the impugned action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Rule 3(1) read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1980 shows that on the basis of the inquiry held in terms of Rule 4 and consideration made by the Director, Higher Education, the competent authority has to pass a detailed order and such order has to be a speaking order. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This provision is in substance a statutory incorporation of the principles of natural justice. It is one of the settled principles of administrative law that every quasi-judicial authority must pass a speaking order, The duty to act judicially is integral part of exercise of quasi judicial functions by every public authority. Such authority is under an obligation to demonstrate that it has acted judicially and fairly. This is possible only when its decision is reasoned one, i.e. the order passed by such authority contains reasons. Requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been treated as an essential feature of the concept of natural justice. Only in the cases of express exclusion or some compelling situation in which this requirement can be read as impliedly excluded, an order passed by the quasi-judicial authority is liable to be nullified if it does not contain reasons. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd.v. Shyama Sunder Jhunjhunwala, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1669.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1607.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Travencore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) III S.C.C.868.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1302.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2083.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, (1974)3 S.C.C. 318.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Siemens Engineering and . v. Union of India, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 981.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Director Taxes, (1976)1 S.C.C. 1001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 789.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Rama Verma Bharathan Tharpuram v. State of Kerala, (1975)4 S.C.C. 782</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(13) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 S.C.C. 94, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14) Testeels Ltd. v. N.M. Desai, A.I.R. 1979 Gujarat 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. Such consideration would necessarily include consideration of the allegations of misconduct, reply filed by the delinquent employee, the evidence, if any, collected during the course of inquiry and the representation, if any, submitted by the delinquent. For determining the quantum of punishment these authorities will also have to consider the length of service of the employee, his past record, the nature of misconduct and its impact on the service. A decision taken by the competent authority after due consideration of these factors will ordinarily be immuned from interference by the Courts. However, if the competent authority fails to apply its mind or it is found that the competent authority was influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations or the reasons recorded by such authority are wholly insufficient for awarding a particular punishment, the Court will be entitled to quash such decision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. These authorities were greatly influenced by the singular fact that the petitioner who was in the service of a Girls College, had consumed liquor and had allegedly misbehaved with a person who had made some enquiry from him regarding the reopening of the College. The statement of the petitioner that he had consumed liquor at his house on 6.10.1990 and that he was brought at the college gate on 7.10.1990 by a Rickshawpuller and he was lying in the reception room has altogether been overlooked. It has also been overlooked that 7.10.1990 was a holiday and the college was otherwise also closed on account of agitation of the students in connection with reservation policy of the Government and the Mandal Commission's report. It has also been ignored that the petitioner had rendered ten years unblemished service and that he was not on duty on 7.10.1990. Non-consideration of these material factors is sufficient to give rise to an inference that neither of the authorities had adverted their attention to the relevant considerations before taking a decision to terminate the service of the petitioner. It must, therefore, be held that the action taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. Rather there has been a non-consideration of many important factors which were required to be taken note of by the competent authorities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State Punjab v. Ram Singh, J.T. 1992(4) S.C. 253, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in support of his argument that the petitioner was guilty of gravest misconduct, is of little assistance to the case of that respondent. That was a case in which a member of the police force was found heavily drunk while on duties. He became uncontrollable and was seen roaming or wandering in the market with service revolver. In that background the Supreme Court held that the authorities were fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police - has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. In that very case, the Supreme Court did observe that taking to drink by itself may not be a misconduct and out of office hours one may take drink and remain in the house. This shows that even the apex Court has recognised that taking of drink by a person while he is not on duty is by itself not sufficient to charge him with the allegation of misconduct but taking to drink while on duty has to be viewed seriously. In so far as the case in hand is concerned there is no allegation that the petitioner had consumed liquor while on duty or he come to the College to perform his duties after consuming liquor. Rather it is an admitted position that the College was closed on 7.10.1990 on account of Sunday and also that various educational institutions were already closed due to anti-reservation agitation. Therefore, the principle laid down in Ram Singh's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. At the cost of repetition, it need be mentioned that the petitioner had con- sumed liquor at his home on 6.10.1990. He was not on duty at that time and even on 7.10.1990 he was not on duty. Therefore, his case cannot be treated as similar to the case of a police constable who was found in a drunken state while on duty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Another reason for not sustaining the impugned action is that the employer has terminated the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect. Termination of service can operate prospectively and not from a date earlier than the date of order. This proposition finds support from the judgment in this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh, 1989(2) R.S.J. 463.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Commissioner was under the impression that the petitioner had consumed liquor in the college and then had gone to the College-hostel premises. This was not even the allegation levelled against the petitioner by the management. No evidence was placed on record to show that the petitioner had gone to the hostel premises. Therefore, it must be held that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government decided the revision petition more on conjectures and assumptions rather on the material placed before him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order (Annexure P-5) and resolution (Annexure P-7) are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. The Director, Higher Education, Haryana, is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of proposal sent to him by respondent No. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment. During the intervening period, i.e. from 20.11.1991 till the date of fresh order, the petitioner shall be treated under suspension. It shall be for the Director to take a final decision regarding the treatment to be meted for the period of suspension. After receipt of the order from the Director, respondent No. 2 shall pass necessary order. Appropriate action in this regard shall be taken by the Director, Higher Education, and respondent No. 2 within a period of three months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1995)110PLR506',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624635'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 2 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 3 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 7 of the Act',
		(int) 7 => 'Rule 4',
		(int) 8 => 'The Governing Body of the college',
		(int) 9 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 10 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 11 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 12 => 'the Governing Body/Managing Committee',
		(int) 13 => 'Rule 4',
		(int) 14 => 'the Governing Body (Annexure',
		(int) 15 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 16 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 17 => 'P-5'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ORDERG.S. Singhvi',
		(int) 1 => 'Principal',
		(int) 2 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 3 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 4 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 5 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 6 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 9 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 12 => 'Govind Goel',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri Goel',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Goel Argued',
		(int) 15 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 16 => 'Shri Goel',
		(int) 17 => 'Managing Commitlee',
		(int) 18 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 19 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 20 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 21 => 'Rickshaw',
		(int) 22 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 23 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 24 => 'Maha Singh Sharma',
		(int) 25 => 'Shri Jain',
		(int) 26 => 'Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab',
		(int) 27 => 'S.C. 1671.(7',
		(int) 28 => 'Bakhtawar Singh',
		(int) 29 => 'Taxes',
		(int) 30 => 'Mohindra',
		(int) 31 => 'N.M.',
		(int) 32 => 'Rickshawpuller',
		(int) 33 => 'Nos',
		(int) 34 => 'Ram Singh',
		(int) 35 => 'Ram Singh's',
		(int) 36 => 'Gurpal Singh',
		(int) 37 => 'Haryana'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Rules',
		(int) 2 => 'Rules',
		(int) 3 => 'Shyama'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '30.7.1980',
		(int) 1 => 'the year 1983',
		(int) 2 => 'October 8, 1990',
		(int) 3 => '28.12.1990',
		(int) 4 => '1.12.1990',
		(int) 5 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 6 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 7 => '1980',
		(int) 8 => '1980',
		(int) 9 => '4',
		(int) 10 => '6',
		(int) 11 => '1980',
		(int) 12 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 13 => 'a date earlier',
		(int) 14 => '10 years',
		(int) 15 => '1980',
		(int) 16 => '8.10.1990',
		(int) 17 => '8.6.1991',
		(int) 18 => 'Sunday',
		(int) 19 => ''11',
		(int) 20 => 'October',
		(int) 21 => ''12',
		(int) 22 => '1980',
		(int) 23 => '1961',
		(int) 24 => '1967',
		(int) 25 => '1969',
		(int) 26 => '1970',
		(int) 27 => '1972',
		(int) 28 => '1972',
		(int) 29 => '1976',
		(int) 30 => '1001.(11',
		(int) 31 => '1979',
		(int) 32 => '1975)4 S.C.C.',
		(int) 33 => '1990',
		(int) 34 => '94',
		(int) 35 => '1979',
		(int) 36 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 37 => 'ten years',
		(int) 38 => 'Sunday',
		(int) 39 => 'a date earlier',
		(int) 40 => '1989(2',
		(int) 41 => '20.11.1991',
		(int) 42 => 'a period of',
		(int) 43 => 'three months'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Hindu Girls College',
		(int) 1 => 'College',
		(int) 2 => 'Managing Committee',
		(int) 3 => 'Financial',
		(int) 4 => 'Government',
		(int) 5 => 'Haryana, Department of Education',
		(int) 6 => 'Financial',
		(int) 7 => 'Education Department',
		(int) 8 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (',
		(int) 9 => 'Security of Service',
		(int) 10 => 'the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules',
		(int) 11 => 'College',
		(int) 12 => 'College',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
		(int) 14 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 15 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 16 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'Department of Education',
		(int) 19 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 20 => 'Shri S.P. Jain',
		(int) 21 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 22 => 'Government',
		(int) 23 => 'the Mandal Commission',
		(int) 24 => 'a Laboratory Attendent',
		(int) 25 => 'the Managing Committee of the College',
		(int) 26 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 27 => 'the Mandal Commission Report',
		(int) 28 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 29 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 30 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 31 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 32 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 33 => 'Managing Committee',
		(int) 34 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 35 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 36 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 37 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 38 => 'DirectorThe',
		(int) 39 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 40 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 41 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 42 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 43 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 44 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 45 => 'the Managing Committee',
		(int) 46 => 'State',
		(int) 47 => 'Mandal Commission Report',
		(int) 48 => 'the Principal of the College',
		(int) 49 => 'Shri Pawan Kumar',
		(int) 50 => 'Girls College',
		(int) 51 => 'the Girls Hostel',
		(int) 52 => 'College',
		(int) 53 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Hari Nagar Sugar Mills',
		(int) 55 => 'Ltd.v',
		(int) 56 => 'S.C. 1669.(2',
		(int) 57 => 'Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd.',
		(int) 58 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 59 => 'Bhagat Raja v. Union of India',
		(int) 60 => 'Travencore Rayon Ltd.',
		(int) 61 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 62 => 'S.C. 2083.(8',
		(int) 63 => 'Woolcombers Workers Union',
		(int) 64 => 'Siemens Engineering',
		(int) 65 => 'v. Union of India',
		(int) 66 => 'Ajantha Industries',
		(int) 67 => 'Central Board',
		(int) 68 => 'Mohindra Ltd.',
		(int) 69 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 70 => 'S.N.',
		(int) 71 => 'Testeels Ltd.',
		(int) 72 => 'Court',
		(int) 73 => 'College',
		(int) 74 => 'a Girls College',
		(int) 75 => 'College',
		(int) 76 => 'the Mandal Commission's',
		(int) 77 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 78 => 'State',
		(int) 79 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 80 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 81 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 82 => 'Court',
		(int) 83 => 'College',
		(int) 84 => 'College',
		(int) 85 => 'Court',
		(int) 86 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board',
		(int) 87 => 'College'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 1 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 2 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 4 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Kumar v. State',
		(int) 6 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 7 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 8 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 9 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 10 => 'S.C.C.',
		(int) 11 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 12 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 13 => 'Kerala',
		(int) 14 => 'A.I.R.',
		(int) 15 => 'J.T.',
		(int) 16 => 'S.C.',
		(int) 17 => 'duty.19'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2',
		(int) 1 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 2 => '4.4.1991',
		(int) 3 => '29.7.1991',
		(int) 4 => '22.4.1992',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => '7',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => 'one',
		(int) 9 => '2',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '2',
		(int) 12 => '6.10.1990,(c',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '2',
		(int) 15 => 'one',
		(int) 16 => '4(4',
		(int) 17 => '3',
		(int) 18 => '4(2',
		(int) 19 => '4(3',
		(int) 20 => '4(4',
		(int) 21 => '5',
		(int) 22 => '6',
		(int) 23 => '4(2',
		(int) 24 => '4(4',
		(int) 25 => '6',
		(int) 26 => '4(2)Where',
		(int) 27 => '1',
		(int) 28 => '1',
		(int) 29 => '6',
		(int) 30 => '7',
		(int) 31 => '4(2',
		(int) 32 => '28.12.1990',
		(int) 33 => 'Two',
		(int) 34 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 35 => '6.10.90',
		(int) 36 => '6.10.90',
		(int) 37 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 38 => 'two',
		(int) 39 => '2',
		(int) 40 => '11.1.1991',
		(int) 41 => 'two',
		(int) 42 => '2',
		(int) 43 => '1980.13',
		(int) 44 => 'two',
		(int) 45 => '1607.(4',
		(int) 46 => '1974)3',
		(int) 47 => '318.(9',
		(int) 48 => '2',
		(int) 49 => '789.(12',
		(int) 50 => '4',
		(int) 51 => '1',
		(int) 52 => '2',
		(int) 53 => '253',
		(int) 54 => '2',
		(int) 55 => '463.20',
		(int) 56 => '2',
		(int) 57 => '2',
		(int) 58 => '2'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 1 => 'the Governing Body',
		(int) 2 => ''Shri Pawan Kumar Lab',
		(int) 3 => 'The Governing Body of the College',
		(int) 4 => 'the Governing Body'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'First',
		(int) 1 => 'Second',
		(int) 2 => 'Third',
		(int) 3 => 'Fourth',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'second',
		(int) 6 => '7th',
		(int) 7 => 'first'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the 1980 Rules',
		(int) 1 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 2 => '23.3.1991',
		(int) 3 => 'S.C. 671.(3',
		(int) 4 => 'S.C. 1302.(6'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the night',
		(int) 1 => 'the night',
		(int) 2 => 'the morning',
		(int) 3 => 'the night',
		(int) 4 => 'the morning',
		(int) 5 => 'the morning'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rule 4',
		(int) 1 => 'Ride 4(4',
		(int) 2 => 'P-3',
		(int) 3 => 'Rule 4(4',
		(int) 4 => 'Rule 4(4',
		(int) 5 => 'P-3',
		(int) 6 => 'P-3',
		(int) 7 => 'P-3'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gujarat 1.15'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624635',
		'acts' => 'Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 - Rule 3 and 3(1)',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 9223/1992',
		'appellant' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :3. Penalties -(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :xx xx xx xx xx' 6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. ' 7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. 8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in: 1979 Gujarat 1. 15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. 16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police -has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. 463. 20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh;',
		'citingcases' => 'xx    xx    xx    xx    xx'',
		'counselplain' => ' S.P. Jain and; Rajesh Gumber, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Govind Goel, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1995-01-10',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.S. Singhvi, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.S. Singhvi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner joined service on his appointment as Lab. Assistant on 30.7.1980 in Hindu Girls College, Sonepat, which is being managed by respondent No. 2. He was confirmed in service in the year 1983. On October 8, 1990, the petitioner was suspended. This was followed by a charge-sheet dated 28.12.1990, which was issued by the principal of the College on the basis of decision taken by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 1.12.1990. On 11.1.1991, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure R-2) before the Principal expressing regret for his conduct and requested that he may be pardoned. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 23.3.1991. The Governing Body took notice of the reply filed by the petitioner and the view that the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him. It decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. With a view to comply with the principles of natural justice, the Governing Body decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in its next meeting. On 4.4.1991, the Principal of the College issued notice (Annexure P-2) and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply in regard to the proposal of the Governing body and to express his desire as to whether he wanted to be heard personally. The petitioner expressed his desire to be heard in person. According to him that opportunity of hearing was not given by the Governing Body but he was made to appear before the Chairman of the Governing Body, who transmitted his case to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, for approval of the proposal of Managing Committee to terminate his service. The petitioner submitted representation dated 29.7.1991 (Annexure P-4) to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and prayed that the recommendation made by the Governing Body be quashed, he be exonerated of the charges and the matter be dropped. The Director, Higher Education, gave his approval to the proposal of the Governing Body regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner. On the basis of this approval, the Governing Body of the College passed resolution dated 20.11.1991 and terminated his service w.e.f. 8.10.1990. Against the approval accorded by the Director, the petitioner filed a revision petition. That too has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Haryana, Department of Education, vide his order dated 22.4.1992 (Annexure P-9).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Petitioner has challenged the legality of the action taken by respondent No. 2 terminating his service, the approval accorded by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana and the dismissal of his revision petition by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department. His case is that the proceedings were held against him in violation of the provisions contained in the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979(for short, 'the Act') and the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules of 1980'). Petitioner has pleaded that the procedure prescribed in Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1980 has not been followed by the respondents before passing the order of termination of his service and that the revising authority has not passed a speaking order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In its written statement, respondent No. 2 has stated that the management of the college had received a complaint (Annexure R-1) from one Maha Singh Sharma alleging that the petitioner, who was in drunken state on 7.10.1990, had misbehaved with him when the complainant had visited the college to enquire as to when the college will re-open. The petitioner was immediately sent for medical examination and he was found to be under the influence of liquor. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.10.1990. Thereafter, the Governing Body decided to charge-sheet the petitioner. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner made a statement in writing admitting the allegations. The Governing Body considered the entire matter and resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the gravity of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner's service be terminated. Nevertheless the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing. He appeared before the President of the College and prayed that a lenient view be taken. The matter was considered by the President of the College and he directed that the proposal for termination of the petitioner's service under Section 7 of the Act be sent. Representation made by the petitioner against that proposal was considered by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, who approved the proposal. Thereafter, a decision was taken in the meeting of the Governing Body held on 20.11.1991 to terminate the petitioner's service and that decision was conveyed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is commensurate with the allegation of misconduct found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. First argument of Shri S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of punishment is vitiated on account of failure of respondent No. 2 to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in spite of his admission that he had consumed alcohol. Learned counsel argued that under Rule 4(4) of the 1980 Rules, it is the duty of the Managing Committee to record a finding on the charge levelled against the employee and as no such finding was recorded in the case of the petitioner, entire proceeding leading to the award of punishment is vitiated. Second argument of Shri Jain is that though in its meeting held on 23.3.1991, the Managing Committee resolved to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in fact such hearing was not afforded by the Managing Committee but by the Chairman alone and, therefore, the Court must declare that the petitioner had been condemned unheard. Third argument of Shri Jain is that the orders passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, and the Secretary, Department of Education, are non-speaking, inasmuch as neither of these authorities has applied its mind to the various contentions raised by the petitioner and have not assigned reasons for approving the proposal of the Managing Committee to terminate the service of the petitioner and reject his revision petition. Fourth contention raised by Shri S.P. Jain is that termination of service with retrospective effect is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as respondent No. 2 was not entitled to bring an end the relationship of master and servant with effect from a date earlier than the date of issue of order. Lastly, Shri Jain argued that neither the Managing Committee nor the Director, Higher Education, considered the past record of the petitioner and his length of service while awarding the extreme penalty resulting in depriving the petitioner of his livelihood. Shri Jain pointed out that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner has been magnified beyond all proportions by alleging that the petitioner had consumed liquor while in service of a girls college and while doing so all the authorities have ignored the following facts :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the petitioner had admitted the consumption of liquor on 6.10.1990, but he had stated that liquor was consumed by him at his home due to adverse family circumstances,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) That he was away from his home in the night of 6.10.1990,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) That he was brought to the college by a rickshaw puller,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) That the college was closed due to holidays on 7.10.1990 and even other-wise the college was not functioning due to agitation of students in connection with Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission regarding reservation,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) That the petitioner was merely a Laboratory Attendent and was not connected with the security duty in the college,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) That the petitioner had a clean record of service of over 10 years and his conduct of consuming liquor was an isolated instance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Govind Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, argued that after a proper inquiry held in accordance with Rule 4 and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 decided to punish the petitioner for his grave misconduct involving consumption of liquor and misbehaviour with guardian of one of the students. Shri Goel vehemently argued that the singular act of the petitioner to consume the liquor was sufficient to dismiss him from service and the Managing Committee of the College has duly taken note of the admissions made by the petitioner while holding him guilty of the allegations levelled against him. Shri Goel Argued that personal hearing is not envisaged in Rule 4(4) or any other Rule and, therefore, failure of the Managing Committee to give personal hearing cannot have the effect of vitiating the order of punishment. He pointed out that the Director, Higher Education, examined all the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation and found no merit in the same and, therefore, the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, should be treated as a speaking order. Shri Goel argued that even though 7.10.1990 might be a holiday and college might be not functioning due to agitation in connection with the Mandal Commission Report, the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner cannot be diluted on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980 begins with the following words :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Penalties -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon members to whom these rules are applicable, namely :-xx xx xx xx xx'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Rule 4(1) envisages initiation of inquiry by the Managing Committee. Rule 4(2) contemplates preparation of the charge-sheet. Rule 4(3) speaks of delivery to the employee a copy of the articles of charges, the statement of allegations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be substantiated. The employee is required to be called upon to submit a written statement of defence and express his desire whether he wants to be heard in person. Rule 4(4) contemplates action required to be taken by the Managing Committee on receipt of the written statement of defence. Various other Sub-rules of Rule 4 lay down the procedure to be followed in the conduct of inquiry. Rule 5 speaks of the action which the Managing Committee is entitled to take on the inquiry report. Rule 6 provides for the action to be taken by the Director on receipt of the proposal from the Managing Committee. Rule 7 provides for passing of a detailed order by the Managing Committee on receipt of the approval from the Director. Rule 4(2), 4(4), 6 and 7 can usefully be quoted below for proper appreciation of the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Rule 4(2)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Where it is proposed to proceed against an employee for the award of major punishment the Managing Committee shall draw up-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) a statement of allegations on which each charge is based including the statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the employee,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be substantiated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 4(4)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into such of the articles of charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose, and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the employee in his written statement of defence, the Managing Committee shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it. may think fit and shall act in the manner hereinafter laid down in these rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the employee within the specified period, the Managing Committee may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (1) an inquiry officer for the purpose.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Where the Managing Committee itself inquires into the articles of charges or appoints an inquiry officer for holding an inquiry into such charges, it may, by order, appoint a presenting officer to present, on its behalf, the case in support of the articles of charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 6, Action by Director</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Director, on receipt of such proposal and representation, if any, may, after examining the record and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard by an order in writing give him approval to the imposition of the proposed punishment or refuse to give approval, if the proposal is found to be mala fide or by way of victimisation or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 7. Order by Managing Commitlee-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the approval of the Director, the Managing Committee shall pass an order in detail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A cumulative reading of Rule 3(1) and various other Rules, quoted above, shows that any of the penalties specified in Rule 3(1) can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. In terms of Rule 4(2) the Managing Committee is required to draw up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges.In terms of Ride 4(4), the Managing Committee is required to record its finding on each charge where articles of charges have been admitted by the employee. While recording finding on each charge, the Managing Committee is entitled to take such evidence as it considers appropriate. It shall then proceed in accordance with other Rules. The Director to whom a proposal is required to be forwarded by the Managing Committee in terms of Rule 5(3)(b), (c) and (d), has to consider the proposal of the Managing Committee together with representation of the employee and then - give approval or refuse to give approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee. For arriving at his decision, the Director is free to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A look at the record of this case shows that on 7.10.1990, one Maha Singh Sharma made a complaint to the effect that when he had visited the girls college to find out as to when the college will re-open, he found the petitioner sitting in a badly drunken state and out of his senses. Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him. He brought this fact to the notice of the President of the College. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the hospital and he was found to be under the influence of alcohol. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8.10.1990. The Governing Body of the college decided to serve a charge-sheet upon the petitioner which was issued on 28.12.1990. Two allegations were levelled against the petitioner. The first one was that the petitioner was found drunken in the reception room on the main gate of the college on 7.10.1990. The second one was that the petitioner had misbehaved with Maha Singh Sharma. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.1.1991 in which he admitted the consumption of liquor. The circumstances in which the petitioner consumed the liquor and was found in the reception room at the college gate have been enumerated in his reply which reads:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'In this regard I stated that on the night of 6.10.90, I consumed alcohol in excess quantity on account of some problem at my house. Therefore, I could not regain senses till the morning of 7.10.1990 and I remained out of my house during the night of 6.10.90. In the morning, I was brought to the college gate by Rickshaw puller. Thereupon I remained lying in the reception room. I 'feel sorry for my misconduct during this period and I assure you that such mistake will not be repeated nor I have conducted such mistake in the past. Therefore, I request that I may be pardoned. I shall be grateful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, it is significant to observe that in his complaint Maha Singh Sharma did not state that he was a guardian of the girl student. Another significant feature which emerges from the complaint is that Maha Singh Sharma had come to enquire as to when the college will re-open. This indicates that the college was closed on 7.10.1990. It is also significant to note that though Maha Singh Sharma alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with him under the influence of liquor, he did not indicate as to in what manner the petitioner misbehaved with him. No particulars of the allegation of the misbehaviour have been given in the statement of imputation (Annexure P-1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. After the petitioner had expressed his regret in his letter dated 11.1.1991, the Government Body resolved on 23.3.1991 that in view of the admissions made by the petitioner, he deserves to be removed from the service. However, at the time it was decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This opportunity of personal hearing was admittedly not given to the petitioner by the Governing Body but by the Chairman of the Government Body as is evident from Annexure P-3 dated 8.6.1991. Before the Director of Higher Education to whom the proposal was sent by the Chairman, the petitioner had pleaded that the college was closed on 7.10.1990 due to Sunday and almost all educational institution were closed in the State due to agitation on Mandal Commission Report. He also pointed out the circumstances under which he consumed liquor. He further stated that when a person came to him to enquire about the re-opening of the college, he had told him to enquire from the Principal of the College and upon this the said person felt offended. He submitted that his confession was secured by the President of the Government Body under immense pressure. The petitioner also stated that no inquiry was held against him and no opportunity of personal hearing was not given to him. What the Director of Higher Education did was that he considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner and two pleas raised by the petitioner in his written statement, namely, that his confessions were secured under pressure and that there were procedural infirmities in the action of the management. Thereafter, the Director recorded his conclusion in the following words:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I have considered the submission made by both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. The facts of misconduct against Shri Pawan Kumar stand proved. Such acts of misconduct on the part of an employee of Girls College needs to be taken seriously. I, therefore, approve the proposal of the management regarding the termination of services of 'Shri Pawan Kumar Lab. Assistant. The management may pass further orders as per provisions of the rules.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Secretary to whom the revision petition was preferred by the petitioner dismissed the same with the following observations:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find from the explanation submitted by the petitioner that he had admitted being drunk and not being in control of his senses on the morning of 7th October. He has also admitted that he was present in the campus although he denied that he was in the office room. Thus, the main charge that the petitioner was found drunk in the premises of the Girls Hostel, has been admitted by the petitioner. I agree with the view of the management that special pre-cautions have to be taken in the case of any mis-behaviour in the campus of a hostel meant for girls. The petitioner, as a member of the College staff, should not have got drunk and gone to the college hostel premises even if he had gone only as far as the lawn of the hostel. This kind of incident can create an adverse view in the public about the security in the girls hostel and this no college management can afford to ignore. I, therefore, find no merit in the petition and reject the appeal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The argument of Shri Jain that respondent No. 2 did not comply with the provisions of Rule 4(4) is, in my opinion, without force. The Governing Body of the College did consider the reply dated 11.1.1991 filed by the petitioner and recorded a finding that the petitioner has confessed his guilty regarding both the charges. Whether the ultimate action taken by the Governing Body to terminate the service of the petitioner is legally sustainable or not, this much is evident from perusal of Annexure R-3 that the Governing Body did consider the reply of the petitioner and recorded its conclusion in respect of the two charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 contravened Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 1980.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. However, two serious infirmities with which the action taken by the respondents suffer and to which detailed reference would be made hereinafter have the effect of vitiating the action of the respondents in bringing about an end to the service of the petitioner. The first infirmity is that after having decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the Government Body did not in fact give such an opportunity to the petitioner. In this context reference to Annexure R-3 is once again necessary. A look at that document shows that the Governing Body unequivocally resolved to hear the petitioner personally before taking a final decision. However, when the stage reached for giving personal hearing to the petitioner, the Chairman and not the Governing body heard the petitioner. This fact is proved from Annexure P-3. The Government Body consists of the Chairman and members and, therefore, hearing given by the Chairman cannot be equated with a hearing by the Governing Body. It was quite possible for the Governing Body to have taken a different view of the misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner in the light of his personal explanation. Therefore, the hearing given to the petitioner by the Chairman will have to be treated as no hearing in the eye of law. Logically, it must be held that the decision taken by the Chairman vide Annexure P-3 was contrary to the rule of natural justice. It is irrelevant that no provision exists in the Rules for giving an opportunity of personal hearing by the Governing Body/Managing Committee. Having suo moto decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing, the Government Body could have not ignored its own decision. This breach of the principles of natural justice coupled with another equally serious legal infirmity does have the effect of invalidating the impugned action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Rule 3(1) read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1980 shows that on the basis of the inquiry held in terms of Rule 4 and consideration made by the Director, Higher Education, the competent authority has to pass a detailed order and such order has to be a speaking order. The opening words of Rule 3(1) clearly contemplates recording of good and sufficient reasons by the competent authority for imposing any of the penalties specified in that Rule. The requirement of good and sufficient reasons in the statutory Rule inheres in itself that the competent authority will not only record reasons but such reasons must be good as well as sufficient and the same must be communicated to the affected employee. This provision is in substance a statutory incorporation of the principles of natural justice. It is one of the settled principles of administrative law that every quasi-judicial authority must pass a speaking order, The duty to act judicially is integral part of exercise of quasi judicial functions by every public authority. Such authority is under an obligation to demonstrate that it has acted judicially and fairly. This is possible only when its decision is reasoned one, i.e. the order passed by such authority contains reasons. Requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been treated as an essential feature of the concept of natural justice. Only in the cases of express exclusion or some compelling situation in which this requirement can be read as impliedly excluded, an order passed by the quasi-judicial authority is liable to be nullified if it does not contain reasons. This proposition of law can be treated as well settled in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd.v. Shyama Sunder Jhunjhunwala, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1669.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1607.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Travencore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) III S.C.C.868.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1302.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1671.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2083.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, (1974)3 S.C.C. 318.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Siemens Engineering and . v. Union of India, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 981.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Director Taxes, (1976)1 S.C.C. 1001.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 789.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Rama Verma Bharathan Tharpuram v. State of Kerala, (1975)4 S.C.C. 782</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(13) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 S.C.C. 94, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14) Testeels Ltd. v. N.M. Desai, A.I.R. 1979 Gujarat 1.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since Rule 3(1) requires that there should exists good as well as sufficient reasons, there is an implied duty imposed on the Government Body/Managing Committee of the College is well as the Director, Higher Education to consider the entire material placed before them before taking a decision to punish an employee. Such consideration would necessarily include consideration of the allegations of misconduct, reply filed by the delinquent employee, the evidence, if any, collected during the course of inquiry and the representation, if any, submitted by the delinquent. For determining the quantum of punishment these authorities will also have to consider the length of service of the employee, his past record, the nature of misconduct and its impact on the service. A decision taken by the competent authority after due consideration of these factors will ordinarily be immuned from interference by the Courts. However, if the competent authority fails to apply its mind or it is found that the competent authority was influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations or the reasons recorded by such authority are wholly insufficient for awarding a particular punishment, the Court will be entitled to quash such decision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A look at the resolution passed by the Governing Body (Annexure P-3), the letter written by the chairman of the Governing Body to the Principal of the College to forward the proposal of termination of service of the petitioner to the Director, the order passed by the Director and the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 20.11.1991 clearly show that neither of these authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in a correct perspective. These authorities were greatly influenced by the singular fact that the petitioner who was in the service of a Girls College, had consumed liquor and had allegedly misbehaved with a person who had made some enquiry from him regarding the reopening of the College. The statement of the petitioner that he had consumed liquor at his house on 6.10.1990 and that he was brought at the college gate on 7.10.1990 by a Rickshawpuller and he was lying in the reception room has altogether been overlooked. It has also been overlooked that 7.10.1990 was a holiday and the college was otherwise also closed on account of agitation of the students in connection with reservation policy of the Government and the Mandal Commission's report. It has also been ignored that the petitioner had rendered ten years unblemished service and that he was not on duty on 7.10.1990. Non-consideration of these material factors is sufficient to give rise to an inference that neither of the authorities had adverted their attention to the relevant considerations before taking a decision to terminate the service of the petitioner. It must, therefore, be held that the action taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to terminate the service of the petitioner is not based on good and sufficient reasons. Rather there has been a non-consideration of many important factors which were required to be taken note of by the competent authorities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State Punjab v. Ram Singh, J.T. 1992(4) S.C. 253, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in support of his argument that the petitioner was guilty of gravest misconduct, is of little assistance to the case of that respondent. That was a case in which a member of the police force was found heavily drunk while on duties. He became uncontrollable and was seen roaming or wandering in the market with service revolver. In that background the Supreme Court held that the authorities were fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court observed that a member of disciplined force like police - has to maintain discipline and cannot be permitted to resort to drink and be in a drunken state while on duty. In that very case, the Supreme Court did observe that taking to drink by itself may not be a misconduct and out of office hours one may take drink and remain in the house. This shows that even the apex Court has recognised that taking of drink by a person while he is not on duty is by itself not sufficient to charge him with the allegation of misconduct but taking to drink while on duty has to be viewed seriously. In so far as the case in hand is concerned there is no allegation that the petitioner had consumed liquor while on duty or he come to the College to perform his duties after consuming liquor. Rather it is an admitted position that the College was closed on 7.10.1990 on account of Sunday and also that various educational institutions were already closed due to anti-reservation agitation. Therefore, the principle laid down in Ram Singh's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. At the cost of repetition, it need be mentioned that the petitioner had con- sumed liquor at his home on 6.10.1990. He was not on duty at that time and even on 7.10.1990 he was not on duty. Therefore, his case cannot be treated as similar to the case of a police constable who was found in a drunken state while on duty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Another reason for not sustaining the impugned action is that the employer has terminated the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect. Termination of service can operate prospectively and not from a date earlier than the date of order. This proposition finds support from the judgment in this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Gurpal Singh, 1989(2) R.S.J. 463.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In so far as the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, a mere perusal of the same clearly shows that the Commissioner has totally misdirected himself while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Commissioner was under the impression that the petitioner had consumed liquor in the college and then had gone to the College-hostel premises. This was not even the allegation levelled against the petitioner by the management. No evidence was placed on record to show that the petitioner had gone to the hostel premises. Therefore, it must be held that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government decided the revision petition more on conjectures and assumptions rather on the material placed before him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order (Annexure P-5) and resolution (Annexure P-7) are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. The Director, Higher Education, Haryana, is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of proposal sent to him by respondent No. 2. The Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the representative of the management as well as the petitioner and decide the case afresh in the light of this judgment. During the intervening period, i.e. from 20.11.1991 till the date of fresh order, the petitioner shall be treated under suspension. It shall be for the Director to take a final decision regarding the treatment to be meted for the period of suspension. After receipt of the order from the Director, respondent No. 2 shall pass necessary order. Appropriate action in this regard shall be taken by the Director, Higher Education, and respondent No. 2 within a period of three months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1995)110PLR506',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624635'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: the Governing Body of the College, the Governing Body of the College, the Governing Body, the Governing Body, the Governing Body of the College, Section 7 of the Act and Rules 3, Section 7 of the Act, Rule 4, The Governing Body of the college, the Governing Body, the Governing Body, the Governing Body, the Governing Body/Managing Committee, Rule 4, the Governing Body (Annexure, the Governing Body, the Governing Body, P-5

PERSON: ORDERG.S. Singhvi, Principal, Haryana, Haryana, Haryana, Maha Singh Sharma, Haryana, Shri Jain, Shri Jain, Haryana, Shri Jain, Shri Jain, Govind Goel, Shri Goel, Shri Goel Argued, Haryana, Shri Goel, Managing Commitlee, Maha Singh Sharma, Maha Singh Sharma, Maha Singh Sharma, Rickshaw, Maha Singh Sharma, Maha Singh Sharma, Maha Singh Sharma, Shri Jain, Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab, S.C. 1671.(7, Bakhtawar Singh, Taxes, Mohindra, N.M., Rickshawpuller, Nos, Ram Singh, Ram Singh's, Gurpal Singh, Haryana

NORP: J.1, Rules, Rules, Shyama

DATE: 30.7.1980, the year 1983, October 8, 1990, 28.12.1990, 1.12.1990, 23.3.1991, 20.11.1991, 1980, 1980, 4, 6, 1980, 20.11.1991, a date earlier, 10 years, 1980, 8.10.1990, 8.6.1991, Sunday, '11, October, '12, 1980, 1961, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1972, 1976, 1001.(11, 1979, 1975)4 S.C.C., 1990, 94, 1979, 20.11.1991, ten years, Sunday, a date earlier, 1989(2, 20.11.1991, a period of, three months

ORG: Hindu Girls College, College, Managing Committee, Financial, Government, Haryana, Department of Education, Financial, Education Department, the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (, Security of Service, the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, College, College, Shri S.P. Jain, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, Court, Department of Education, the Managing Committee, Shri S.P. Jain, the Managing Committee, Government, the Mandal Commission, a Laboratory Attendent, the Managing Committee of the College, the Managing Committee, the Mandal Commission Report, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, DirectorThe, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee, State, Mandal Commission Report, the Principal of the College, Shri Pawan Kumar, Girls College, the Girls Hostel, College, the Supreme Court, Hari Nagar Sugar Mills, Ltd.v, S.C. 1669.(2, Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., Union of India, Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, Travencore Rayon Ltd., Union of India, S.C. 2083.(8, Woolcombers Workers Union, Siemens Engineering, v. Union of India, Ajantha Industries, Central Board, Mohindra Ltd., Union of India, S.N., Testeels Ltd., Court, College, a Girls College, College, the Mandal Commission's, the Supreme Court, State, the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Court, College, College, Court, Punjab State Electricity Board, College

GPE: Sonepat, A.I.R., A.I.R., A.I.R., S.C., Kumar v. State, U.P., A.I.R., A.I.R., A.I.R., S.C.C., A.I.R., S.C., Kerala, A.I.R., J.T., S.C., duty.19

CARDINAL: 2, 11.1.1991, 4.4.1991, 29.7.1991, 22.4.1992, 2, 7, 2, one, 2, 2, 2, 6.10.1990,(c, 2, 2, one, 4(4, 3, 4(2, 4(3, 4(4, 5, 6, 4(2, 4(4, 6, 4(2)Where, 1, 1, 6, 7, 4(2, 28.12.1990, Two, 11.1.1991, 6.10.90, 6.10.90, 11.1.1991, two, 2, 11.1.1991, two, 2, 1980.13, two, 1607.(4, 1974)3, 318.(9, 2, 789.(12, 4, 1, 2, 253, 2, 463.20, 2, 2, 2

WORK_OF_ART: 23.3.1991, the Governing Body, 'Shri Pawan Kumar Lab, The Governing Body of the College, the Governing Body

ORDINAL: First, Second, Third, Fourth, first, second, 7th, first

EVENT: the 1980 Rules, 23.3.1991, 23.3.1991, S.C. 671.(3, S.C. 1302.(6

TIME: the night, the night, the morning, the night, the morning, the morning

PRODUCT: Rule 4, Ride 4(4, P-3, Rule 4(4, Rule 4(4, P-3, P-3, P-3

FAC: Gujarat 1.15