Ved Prakash Chaudhry Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1979|
|Judge|| R.S. Pathak and; V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1980SC846; 1980Supp(1)SCC371; 1980(12)LC86(SC)|
|Acts||Constitution of India - Articles 136 and 226|
|Appellant||Ved Prakash Chaudhry|
|Respondent||State of Haryana and ors.|
.....- articles 136 and 226 of constitution of india - appellant was lecturer in government college in state of haryana - disciplinary proceedings initiated on account of insubordination - appellant dismissed from service - appellant challenged dismissal before high court which was dismissed - court given opinion that appellant-lecturer case should be dealt with leniently - conduct of appellant not offensive but misunderstood as insubordination - state directed to reinstate appellant - appeal allowed.
[ a.k. sarkar,; j.r. mudholkar,; k. subbarao,; n. rajgopala ayyangar and; raghubar dayal, jj.] under a. 413 of the calcutta municipal act, 1951, no person shall without a licence granted by the corporation of calcutta, keep open any cinema house for public amusement in calcutta. under s...........who has come to this court by special leave, is a lecturer in a government college run by the state of haryana. on the score that he was guilty of insubordination, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which eventuated in his dismissal by the director of public instructions. this order was challenged under article 226 of the constitution, which was dismissed in limine by the high court. the petitions for leave under article 136 having been granted, this appeal came up for hearing. when the facts were preliminarily explained, the court felt that this was a case where apart from the merits, there would be serious hardship and inequity if the lecturer were dismissed from service. thereupon, the counsel for the state agreed to consult his client, the state of haryana, and.....
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.
1. The appellant in this case, who has come to this Court by special leave, is a Lecturer in a Government college run by the State of Haryana. On the score that he was guilty of insubordination, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which eventuated in his dismissal by the Director of Public Instructions. This order was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was dismissed in limine by the High Court. The petitions for leave under Article 136 having been granted, this appeal came up for hearing. When the facts were preliminarily explained, the Court felt that this was a case where apart from the merits, there would be serious hardship and inequity if the lecturer were dismissed from Service. Thereupon, the Counsel for the State agreed to consult his client, the State of Haryana, and convey the view expressed by the Court. Shri Lakhi, appearing for the State, represents that his client has acceded to the suggestion made by the Court as a fair course, and that an order may be passed which may take care of the situation without encouragement to insubordination.
2. We consider that this is eminently a case where the appellant lecturer should be dealt with leniently. He expresses contrition for his conduct which was not offensive but was misunderstood as insubordination. We direct the State to re-instate the appellant in service and to pay half the amount that may be due to him by way of salary during the period of between today and the date on which he was oestensibly dismissed, namely June 27, 1974. He will be re-instated within two weeks from today. Parties will bear their own costs.