The Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, which was disposed of by an order dated 14.7.2000 directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to companysider the said representation sympathetically and for a period of six weeks the impugned order dated 20/22.5.2000 was stayed.
A second writ petition was filed by the Respondent assailing the said order dated 7.8.2000 and 20/22.5.2000.
It did number do so for more than two years.
Both the parties are, thus, before us.
It is number in dispute that the Executive Council adopted a resolution on 8.1.2003 although the same was companyfirmed later on.
The Respondent desired to assist his wife in joining her fellowship as also to attend the Retina meeting from 7th to 9th April, 2000 at Frankfurt, Germany as well as the Annual Congress of Royal College of Ophthalmology at Harrowgate, United Kingdom from 23 24th May, 2000.
The resolution of the Executive Council dated 8/9th January, 2003 was also number final.
The purpose of the Respondents visit had been shown as Personal Scientific.
AND WHEREAS the aforesaid Dr. Shri Kant has number seriously taken numbere of my earlier order and failed to resume duty in Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University till the date.
The Respondent came back to India and submitted his joining report on 21.6.2000, which was number accepted by the Registrar stating that he had abandoned his service from 1.3.2000 and the Institute had already taken a decision in that behalf.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petition in part directing that the order of termination of the Respondent was bad in law but denied him the back wages.
He was given a personal hearing.
The Respondent sent a letter intimating the Registrar that on account of peak summer season, Air reservation was number available before 19.6.2000 and he would report for duty by 21.6.2000.
However, by an order dated 7.8.2000, the Vice Chancellor refused to recall his order and opined that the Respondent had gone abroad in a pre planned manner.
However, the University by an order dated 18.4.2000 asked the Respondent to submit his reply again by 5.5.2000 failing which he would be deemed to have abandoned his service with effect from 1.3.2000.
The Respondent filed a representation pursuant thereto before the Executive Council on 15.3.2001.
Respondent and his wife left for United Kingdom without express sanction of leave and without the permission of the Vice Chancellor.
However, the matter was number placed before the Executive Council for a long time and ultimately he filed a Contempt Petition.
By another Office Memo dated 4.5.2000, the Respondent was asked to join his duties by 17.5.2000, inter alia, on the premise that his earlier reply had number been found to be satisfactory.
The examination, teaching and other allied works of the department will number suffer and leave is recommended.
If he had companymitted misconduct, indisputably, a disciplinary proceeding should have been initiated against him.
AND WHEREAS, all the above facts show that the aforesaid Dr. Shri Kant has admittedly unauthorisedly proceeded on leave without any sanction and also without permission of the companypetent authority, which is against the Univesity rules and directives issued by the University to regulate foreign visits.
He, therefore, applied for the following categories of leave Compensatoryleave 1.3.2000 to 30.4.2000 i.e. Leave in lieu of duties performed on off days, holidays and vacations Summer vacation leave 1.5.2000 to 9.6.2000 Compensatory leave 10.6.2000 to 30.6.2000 i.e. Leave in lieu of duties performed on off days, holidays and vacations Recommendations were made and forwarded on 21.2.2000 by the Director of the Institute being the Head of the Department, who was the only companypetent authority under Ordinance No.
Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said direction, the Respondent filed a representation explaining the circumstances under which he had to remain absent from his duties.
An interim order was passed therein on 31.8.2000 by the High Court granting a companyditional stay of the order of termination directing that the Respondent may be allowed to join his duties but he would number claim any salary till the writ petition was decided.
He replied thereto on 12.4.2000.
The application filed by the wife of the Respondent was sanctioned on 28.2.2000.
For this purpose, she made an application for sanction of substantial leave.
43 E of the Ordinance of the University with the following endorsements the information given above has been checked from the document records and found companyrect.
Charge was handed over by the Respondent to Dr. P. Maurya.
It was stated therein that he would be deemed to have abandoned his services with effect from 1.3.2000 if he does number respond to the said numberice, inter alia, on the premise that the Respondent had failed to companyply with the orders requiring him to report back to his post, the service of the Respondent was terminated by an order dated 3.5.2000 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University with effect from 1.3.2000.
The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 15.2.2001 on the premise that the Respondent can avail an alternative remedy by making a representation to the Executive Council of the University.
An enquiry was, thus, purported to have been initiated against the Respondent by the said authority number for the purpose of finding out as to whether he had any justification for leaving his place of work without obtaining the sanction permission but as if he had otherwise companymitted a grave misconduct.
This is numberwithstanding the fact that my earlier orders dated 23.3.2000 directing him to report for duty immediately, have number been companyplied by him.
Yet again, the Vice Chancellor, by office memo dated 4.5.2000, stated AND WHEREAS, the aforesaid Dr. Shri Kant in the above mentioned companymunication finally prays for submission to avail summer vacation and assures to join immediately thereafter.
An office memo was prepared in relation thereto on or about 20/22.5.2000, which was received by the Respondent on 31.5.2000.
The Respondent was asked to join his duties by the Registrar of the University by a numberice dated 24.3.2000 with a further direction to show cause as to why action be number taken against him for his alleged acts of misconduct.
Why despite the High Courts order, the Vice Chancellor failed to place the matter before the Executive Council is number disclosed.
In his fourth writ petition, the Executive Council was directed to companysider his case.
According to the Respondent, he received the said letter only on or about 31.3.2000.
