Home > Punjab > Polytechnic > Jalandhar > Mehr Chand Polytechnic College
Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar, Punjab
Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar, Punjab
Address:Dayanand Nagar, G.T. Road
Jalandhar (District Jalandhar)
Punjab, IndiaPin Code : 144008
Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is a recognised institute / college. Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is managed by Society: Arya Pradeshik Prinidhi Upsabha, Punjab. Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab was established on / in 1954.
Principal of Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is Er. Jagroop Singh, M.Tech (Gold Medalist).
Mehr Chand Polytechnic College is situated in Jalandhar of Punjab state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Jalandhar comes under Jalandhar Tehsil, Jalandhar District.
Fax # of Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is 0181-2203305.
Contact Person(s) of the Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is (are): Er S.K. Sahdev, SH. SPS KHURANA.
Residence Phone No(s) of concerned peron(s) of Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is (are) : 2202593, 2470171, 2209470, 2202596.
Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab are 98141-93770, 98729-99653, 09878615600, 98729-28010, 98153-06722, 9878601197, 94652-44321.
email ID(s) is
Website of Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is www.mcpjal.com.
Contact Details of Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab are : 0181-2250184, 2203305, 2471199, 22501840
This college reserves 15% for Minority Community (Arya Samaji)
This college is different from Mehr Chand Technical Institute, Jalandhar.
HOD Ms Usha Kiran Chawla
Ms Poonam Goyal
Prof Rajiv Bhatia (Civil Dept)
Sanjay Bansal (Nodal office & Sr Lecturer)
Other colleges of DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi
DAV Centenary College, Faridabad
DAV Institute of Management, Faridabad
DAV College, Naneola
Sohan Lal DAV College of Education, Ambala
DAV College, Pundri
Dr Ganesh Dass DAV College of Education for Women, Karnal
Kumari Vidyavati Anand DAV College for Women, Karnal
DAV College, Pehowa
DAV College of Engineering and Technology, Kanina
DAV College for Girls, Yamuna Nagar
MCM DAV College for Women, Chandigarh
Hans Raj College, Delhi
PG DAV College, New Delhi
Dayanand College, Ajmer
Kshetrabasi DAV College, Nirakarpur
TDTR DAV Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Yamuna Nagar
Ramanand Arya DAV College, Mumbai (Bombay)
DAV Velankar College of Commerce, Solapur
DBF Dayanand College of Arts and Science, Solapur
Dayanand Ayurvedic College, Jalandhar
DAV College of Education for Women, Amritsar
DAV Institute of Engineering and Technology DAVIET, Jalandhar
Mehr Chand Technical Institute (ITC), Jalandhar
Mahatma Hans Raj DAV Institute of Nursing, Jalandhar
DAV Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Jalandhar
BBK DAV College for Women, Amritsar
DAV College for Boys, Amritsar
DAV College, Jalandhar
DRV DAV Centenary College, Phillaur
Hans Raj Mahila Vidyalaya, Jalandhar
KRM DAV College, Nakodar
Mohan Lal Uppal DAV College, Phagwara
RR Bawa DAV College for Girls, Batala
SL Bawa DAV College, Batala
DAV College Sector 10, Chandigarh
DAV College, Abohar
DAV College, Malout
DAV College for Women, Ferozepur
GGS DAV Centenary College, Jalalabad
Gopi Chand Arya Mahila College, Abohar
JC DAV College, Dasuya
DGB Dayanand Law College, Solapur
DAV School of Business Management, Bhubaneshwar
DAV College, Titilagarh
DPB DAYANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, Solapur
MCM DAV College, Kangra
DAV Centenary College, Kotkhai
DAV Girls College, Kosli
BTC DAV College, Banikhet (Dalhousie)
Lajpat Rai DAV College, Jagraon
MMD DAV College, Gidderbaha
Dayanand Industrial Training Institute, Amritsar
JN Kapoor DAV Dental College, Yamuna Nagar
DAV College, Sadhaura Village
NMDC Ltd. DAV Industrial Training Centre, Dantewada
DAV Polytechnic College, Dantewada
DAV College, Cheeka Guhla
DAV Polytechnic for Women, Yamuna Nagar
Dayanand College, Hisar
Dayanand Brahma Mahavidyalaya, Hisar
DAV College (Lahore), Ambala
JN Goenka DAV Centenary Development Rural Centre, New Delhi
Arya Pradeshik Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi
DAV Institute of Management and Vocational Studies, New Delhi
DAV Institute of Engineering and Technology, Daltonganj
Dayanand Institute of Education, Management and Research, Mumbai (Bombay)
Dayanand Institutions, Solapur
DAV Centre for Management Development in Agriculture and Environment, Rourkela
MG DAV College, Bathinda (Bhatinda)
Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute VVRI, Hoshiarpur
DAV Pharmacy College, Jalandhar
Jiyalal CEd College, Ajmer
MNDAV Dental College, Solan
DAV University, Jalandhar
DAV University for Women, Yamuna Nagar
DAV University, Pune
CoursesNumber of seats in Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab is 40.
Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab runs course(s) in Pharmacy, Polytechnic stream(s).
Approval details: Mehr Chand Polytechnic College is affiliated with Punjab State Board of Technical Education (PSBTE) and Industrial Training, Chandigarh (Punjab)
Images / newspaper cuttings related to Mehr Chand Polytechnic College
Diploma in Engineering (Admission Notice)
Mech, (Admission Notice)
Managed by DAV College (Admission Notice)
Diploma in Engineering Courses (Admission Notice)
Diploma and BTech in all trades (Admission Notice)
Jalandhar Shehar da Maan (News)
BA and BSc Courses (Admission Notice)
Diploma in Civil Electrical and Mechanical etc (Admission Notice)
Lecturer in Civil and Automobile (Job Vacancy)
Meharchand Punjab ka ekmatra Polytechnic College (News)
Diploma Courses (Admission Notice)
Diploma Courses (Admission Notice)
Four Diploma Programme (Profile)
BTech in Civil Electrical and Computer etc (Admission Notice)
BTech in Civil Electrical and Computer etc (Admission Notice)
Diploma Course for BTech (Admission Notice)
BTech in CSE ECE and Civil etc (Admission Notice)
LEcturers Instructors and Wardens etc (Job Vacancy)
BTech in CSE ECE and Civil etc (Admission Notice)
Alumni Meet on 24 4 2011 at 10 AM (Alumni Meet)
Diploma Course in BTech (Admission Notice)
Mehar Chand Polytechnic College nu software wich pehla inam (News)
Meharchand ke 75 Students ne kiya blood donate (News)
Three years Course in BTech (Admission Notice)
Meharchand Polytechnic ke Students ne jamai dhak (News)
Wish you Happy Diwali (Advertisement)
Meharchand College ne dikhaya dam (News)
Lovepreet ke paas tha Raksha ka Facebook Password (News)
Lecturer in Maths and Lab Attendent etc (Job Vacancy)
Student first in District (News)
Viklang balak bana Healthy Students ke liye prerna ka sarot (News)
4 Students are in National Program (News)
Workshop in Mehar Chand Polytechnic College (News)
Lecturer in Civil Engg (Job Vacancy)
Mehar Chand College achieved best Polytechnic college award (News)
Mehar Chand College ke Students desh me 5 th (News)
SDO banne par R K Choudhary ko kiya gaya sammanit (News)
Library automation software (Tender)
Architecture Diploma (Admission Notice)
College Students selected (News)
Joint JET Coaching classes (Admission Notice)
14 Students in top 20 (News)
Students ne dikhaya jalwa (News)
BTech in ECE and ME (Admission Notice)
Book of Principal Jagroop Singh released (News)
JET Test (News)
Technical Fair 2013 (News)
Overall Champion in Techfest (News)
Blood donation camp (News)
BTech in civil and Electrical etc (Admission Notice)
BTech and Architecture (Counselling)
Message of Principal Jagroop Singh (Profile)
Principal Jagroop Singh awarded in Bangkok (News)
Students ke paise chori (News)
BTech through LEET (Admission Notice)
Exam de rahe student leader par hamla (News)
EE, ME, ECE and CSE (Counselling)
Sant Sinchewal doing tree plantation (News)
Jagdeep done top in BTech (News)
Best department trophy to computer department (News)
Punjab se ragging ke 20 mamle UGC me (News)
Students get package of Rs six lacs (Vacancy)
Seminar on Electronic west and Management (News)
MC Polytechnic college elected as Community College (News)
Food and craft course started (News)
Navneet Kaur Bal cleared PCS exam (News)
Engineer Principal with a Literary mission (Advertisement)
Students message to public for vote (News)
Diamond Jubliee year celebrated (Advertisement)
Students selected for job at package of six lakh (Vacancy)
M Tech programme (Admission Notice)
Mehr Chand Polytechnic completes 60 years (News)
London college team visit poly (News)
Diamond Jubilee Year 1954-2014 (Advertisement)
Winner of best polytechnic award (Profile)
Information for Public under RTI 2005 (Corrigendum)
JET admission course (Admission Notice)
Media coverage of Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab, Punjab
Missing mans body found in BeasThe police recovered the body of Baldev Singh, who had been missing for the past few days, from the Beas river today. Baldev was working as a driver at Mehar Chand Polytechnic College.
According to the police, Baldev was killed by three persons, including two tantriks. One of the accused Paramjeet was arrested today, whereas the other two are still at large.
Talking to mediapersons here today, SSP (city-I) M.K. Kalia said Baldev had been missing since May 8 and his wife Inderjeet Kaur had got a complaint registered in this regard.
During investigations, Paramjeet revealed that Baldev had gone to the tantriks at their dera in Buda Kheh village to perform rituals.
There the tantriks, Baldev and he had drinks, after which they strangled Baldev to death with an aim to loot him.
They threw his body in the Beas after tying it with a stone so that the body do not surface. The police said the body of Baldev Singh was identified from an injury mark on his forehead.
Students allege unavailability of admission formsCandidates aspiring for admission in D. Pharmacy conducted by the Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab are a harassed lot. The centre authorised to provide forms has been unable to provide the students the requisite forms and prospectus even though the last date for submitting the application forms is July 5.
The department had designated Mehar Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar, for distributing admission forms for candidates in this region. But on reaching the centre the candidates were told to collect the forms from the Government Polytechnic College for Women, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. However, they had to return empty handed as they were told by the authorities there that the forms were not available with them either.
“I am going there for the past three days regularly after traveling 50 km, just to be told that the forms were not available,” rued Karan from Sultanpur Lodhi here today.
“The authorities should have at least published in the paper about the change as well as non-availability of forms to save the candidates the hassles,” said Suman Lata from Kapurthala.
Mr S.K. Sehdev, Principal of the polytechnic, said: “Though the name of their college was published in newspapers as a centre for forms, they were never sent the forms. Now we are been instructed by the directorate to accept admission forms only.
According to sources, the polytechnic received only 50 forms on Wednesday and these were sold on the same day.
M L Ohri versus Mehr Chand Polytechnic JalandharSTATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Dr. M. L.Ohri,
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic
College, Jalandhar-144008. ……Respondent
AC No. 941 of 2010
Mr. M. L. Ohri, Complainant, in person.
Mr J. S. Jaidka, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The RTI request is dated 27.08.2010. The information sought is a copy of the legal notice served by one Sh. Sanjay Mahajan, Lecturer in Civil Engineering on the Respondent-PIO on 24.09.2009.
2. The Respondent, vide his letter dated 10.09.2010, addressed to the Appellant has rejected the same under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the response, he filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority on 18.09.2010 and Second Appeal with the Commission on 02.11.2010.
3. The representative of the Respondent submits a written response from the Principal which is taken on record. The plea taken by the Respondent to deny information under Section 8(1)(j) is accepted. The Appellant has failed to justify the larger public interest involved if the information is disclosed to him. He admits that his son is fighting a personal case in the High Court because of which he wants a copy of legal notice, Mr. Sanjay Mahajan has served on respondent on 24.09.2009. This Commission is not a Forum for redressal of vendetta or vengeance.
In view of the above, the case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, December 13, 2010. State Information Commissioner.
DILJIT SINGH SON OF SANTOKH SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:-9. 3.2011
Diljit Singh son of Santokh Singh ...Petitioner
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 3.
Mr.Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 4.
M e hinder S i ngh S u llar , J.
The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Managing Committee of the respondent Mehar Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar (respondent No.2) (for brevity “respondent-College”) used to receive 95 per cent grant-in-aid from the Punjab Government. The State Government is stated to have effective control over its affairs and it is also controlled by All India Council for Technical Education (for short “AICTE”).Thus, it is an instrumentality of the State and is covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as held by this Court in case C.L.Kochhar
v. State of Punjab and others 1992 (2) S.L.R. 496.
2. The petitioner claimed that he was appointed as Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy by the respondent-College, by virtue of appointment letter dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure P1), but its principal unilaterally changed his terms and conditions of service, by way of letter dated 23.5.1990 (Annexure P2). In pursuance of letter dated 21.1.1991 (Annexure P3), increment of ` 100/- per month was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1991 in the pay scale of ` 3000-4500 raising his pay from ` 3000 to ` 3100/- per month. The principal of the respondent-College was stated to have illegally terminated the services of the
petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice or holding any inquiry, by means of impugned order dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure P4).
3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned termination order (Annexure P4), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The case set up by the petitioner, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Managing Committee of respondent-College was the appointing and punishing authority of the petitioner, but his services were terminated by its Principal (respondent No.4), vide impugned order (Annexure P4) in an arbitrary manner, without issuing any show cause notice and affording opportunity of being heard to him. Petitioner claimed that although the impugned termination order caused aspersion on his conduct and is a stigmatic order, but still his services were terminated without following the due procedure of inquiry and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It was explained that his work and
conduct had throughout been satisfactory and since no deficiency or discrepancy in his work and conduct was ever conveyed to him, so, the conclusion drawn by the respondent-College in this regard was stated to be arbitrary and without any basis.
5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued, no opportunity of being heard was granted to him and as no inquiry was conducted, therefore, the impugned stigmatic/punitive termination order is not only illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, but against the rules and principles of natural justice as well. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, petitioner sought the quashment of the impugned termination order (Annexure P4), in the manner indicated hereinabove.
6. The respondents No.2 to 4 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their joint written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent-College is not an instrumentality of the State and covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On merits, the factual matrix of appointment of petitioner was admitted. It was submitted that two years' diploma in Pharmacy was started in the year 1987 under the Plan Scheme approved by the Government and the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis.
As the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory, therefore, he was given chances to improve, but his work and conduct remained totally unsatisfactory.
The increment was stated to have been granted to the petitioner as a matter of good-will gesture, after completion of one year's service and the period of his probation was extended for another one year. The services of the petitioner were stated to have been terminated by the Principal on the direction of Management of the respondent-College, by virtue of letter dated 16.8.1991 (Annexure R3).
7. The respondent-College claimed that petitioner was given proper opportunity before his services were terminated. He was asked to explain the position regarding his absence from the respondent-College, by means of letter dated 26.3.1990 (Annexure R4). He was again asked to explain as to why he did not submit the medical certificate for onward transmission to the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.3) and also why he did not inform earlier for making alternative arrangements, by way of letter dated 29.3.1990 (Annexure R5). In the same manner, letter dated 20.8.1991 (Annexure R6) was written to the petitioner, informing about his short comings and
8. The total sum and substance of the case of the respondent-College is that as the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory, therefore, he was issued the letters (Annexures R4 to R6) to give him chances to improve, but in vain. The impugned termination order was stated to be neither stigmatic nor punitive. Thereafter, his services were rightly terminated, vide impugned order (Annexure P4), which was stated to be legal and valid. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.
9. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating his pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner filed the replication.
That is how, I am seized of the matter.
10. Assailing the impugned termination order, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the appointment/punishment authority of the petitioner was Managing Committee and the impugned termination order (Annexure P4) passed by its principal is illegal. The argument is that it is clear from the record and the letters (Annexures R4 to R6) that the impugned termination order is a stigmatic order. Since neither any show cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner, so, the impugned termination order (Annexure P4) is arbitrary, illegal and void. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Debesh Chandra Dass v. Union of India and others 1969 S.L.R. 485 (SC); V.P.Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Ors.
2000(2) S.L.R. 1 (SC) and this Court in case State of Punjab and another v. Darshan Singh 1968 S.L.R.734 (PandH).
11. On the contrary, hailing the impugned order and taking the benefit of his usual ability, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that as the impugned termination order (Annexure P4) is neither stigmatic nor punitive and has been rightly passed by the Managing Committee and conveyed to its principal, by way of letter (Annexure R3), therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit of the indicated post as his services were terminated, while he was on extended period of probation. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and another AIR 2002 Supreme Court 23 and Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. Vs. H.Omkarappa 2010 (1) RSJ 568 and Division Bench of this Court in cases Jaipal Singh v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and another 2009(2) RSJ 772 and Arvinder Kumar v. Union of India and
others 2008(3) RSJ 445.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and legal position with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context.
13. Ex facie, the initial argument of learned counsel that the impugned termination order (Annexure P4) issued by the Principal was illegal as the competent authority of the petitioner was the Managing Committee of the respondent-College, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. The perusal of the record would reveal that the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner was actually taken by the Managing Committee and the Administrative Officer conveyed its decision to the Principal, by way of letter dated 16.8.1991 (Annexure R3), which formed the basis of impugned termination order (Annexure P4). In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the impugned termination order was not passed by the Managing Committee.
14. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the impugned termination order is stigmatic and punitive (as urged on behalf of the petitioner) or simpliciter order passed during his extended period of probation (as claimed by the respondent-College) ?
15. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in relation to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, to me, the impugned termination order cannot possibly be termed as stigmatic or punitive order in this context.
16. Sequelly, the celebrated contention of learned counsel that the letters (Annexures R4 to R6) indicate that services of the petitioner were terminated due to vengeance, which caused aspersion on him and the impugned termination order is stigmatic, is again neither tenable nor the observations in Debesh Chandra Dass V.P.Ahuja and Darshan Singh's cases (supra) are at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
17. As is clear, in Debesh Chandra Dass's case (supra), the question before the Court was as to whether the reversion to the post carrying lower salary, amounts to reduction in rank or not. After considering the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 vis-a-vis Article 311, it was observed that “the reversion to a lower post does not per se amount to a stigma, but if the order of reduction in rank was a stigmatic order, then it must follow the procedure of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
18. Likewise, in V.P.Ahuja and Darshan Singh's cases (supra), it was held that “a probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice.
19. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy.
20. As is evident from the record, that petitioner was appointed as Senior Lecturer on a post, falling under Plan Scheme, on probation for a period of one year or till the scheme is converted into non-plan, whichever is later. As per clause 3 of the appointment letter (Annexure P1), it was specifically stipulated that during the probation period, services of the petitioner can be terminated by one month's notice or salary in lieu of notice period without assigning any reason. Similarly, offer was given to the petitioner to leave the service giving one month notice or salary in lieu thereof without mentioning any reason.
The letter (Annexure P2) reveals that the appointment of petitioner was purely on temporary basis, till the Plan Scheme continues as per order of the management. Although the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, but as a matter of good-will gesture, an increment of ` 100/- per month was granted to him and his probation period was further extended, by way of letter dated 21.1.1991 (Annexure P3).
21. The impugned termination order (Annexure P4) reads as under:-
You were appointed as a Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy on probation for a period of one year with effect from 29th January, 1990 vide this office letter No.7859 dated 29th January, 1990. It was also a condition of the appointment that the probation period can be extended for another year. Your period of probation was extended upto 28th January, 1992 vide letter No.7112 dated 21st January, 1991.
Since you have not come upto the expected standard of efficiency and standard of conduct by the Management, therefore, I have been directed by the Managing Committee to inform you that you are hereby discharged from the service with immediate effect. The salary in lieu of one month's notice period amounting to Rs.5521/- is being paid to you
through the enclosed Bank Draft No.QDA-441957 dated 31.10.1991. You stand relieved with immediate effect.
You are requested to hand over the library books and the charge of the pharmacy department and store if any, to the Head of the Pharmacy Deptt.
22. Meaning thereby, the services of the petitioner were terminated as his work and conduct was not found satisfactory by the management during the course of his extended probation period. He was paid the salary in lieu of one month's notice and the order was termination simpliciter and no stigma is attached to it.
The mere fact that Annexures R4 to R6 are the informations given to the petitioner regarding his unsatisfactory performance, but such correspondence cannot lead to the conclusion that the order terminating his services during the probation period was stigmatic. This matter is not res integra and is well settled.
23. An identical question came to be decided before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case (supra). Having considered the various aspects of the matter and previous judgments, including V.P.Ahuja's case (supra), it was held as under:-
The language used in the order of termination is that the probationer appellant's "work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory". These fall within the class of non-stigmatic orders of termination. It is, therefore safe to conclude that the impugned order is not ex facie stigmatic. It also cannot be held that the enquiry held prior to order of termination turned this otherwise innocuous order into one of punishment.
The reason being an employer is entitled to satisfy itself as to the competence of a probationer to be confirmed in service and for this purpose satisfy itself fairly as to the truth of any allegation that may have been made about the employee. A charge-sheet merely details the allegations so that the employee may deal with them effectively. The enquiry report in this case found nothing more against the appellant than an inability to meet the requirements for the post. Therefore the termination was not in substance
24. The same very view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Progressive Education Society and Anr. v. Rajendra and Anr. 2008(2) RSJ 446 and the Division Bench of this Court in Arvinder Kumar's case (supra).
25. Not only that, again the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chaitanya Prakash's case (supra), relying on the ratio of law laid down in Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case (supra) and Allahabad Bank Officers Assn. v. Allahabad Bank, 1996(4) SCC 504, ruled (para 20) as under:-
“In our considered opinion, the ratio of the above-referred decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The respondent was time and again informed during the probation period about his deficiencies and was given
ample opportunities to improve them. Therefore, enough precautions were taken by the appellants to see that the respondent improved his performance and such an opportunity was provided to him. But such advices and opportunity were totally misplaced as the respondent considered the same as unnecessary encroachment and interference in his work and wrote back rudely in an intemperate language.
Whether or not a person is suitable to be retained and confirmed in service could be considered and assessed by the Managing Director, namely, appellant No.1, but he after making an appraisal submitted his report along with all other records of the respondent before the Board of Directors, who finally took the decision. The Board of Directors constituted of responsible persons and they while deciding the suitability of the respondent not only considered the Performance Assessment Report but also considered all other records, and thereafter they took a considered and conscious decision that the respondent was not suitable for confirmation and terminate his service. The said decision of the Board of Directors appears to be in parity with the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this Court (supra). The reasons mentioned in the letter dated 29.11.1999 - terminating the services of the respondent cannot be said to be stigmatic. The appellant had time and again specifically brought to the notice of the respondent his short comings and no misconduct as such is alleged against the respondent by the appellant and therefore the present case is a case of termination simpliciter due to unsuitability of the respondent and not a case of punishment for misconduct.
As the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments 'mutatis mutandis' is applicable to the facts of the present case as such and is the complete answer to the problem in hand, therefore, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.
26. In this manner, it is concluded that the impugned order (Annexure P4) is a simpliciter termination order passed during the extended period of probation of the petitioner, after giving him the salary in lieu of one month's notice period, in view of the terms and conditions of appointment letter (Annexure P1).
Since neither the impugned termination order is stigmatic or punitive and would not entail any disqualification, so, no regular inquiry was required to be conducted before passing it, as urged on behalf of the petitioner in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
27. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
28. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed as such.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar)
M L OHRI AND OTHERS Vs KANTI DEVIIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.71214-M of 2006
Decided on : 07-07-2009
M.L.Ohri and others ....Petitioners
Kanti Devi ....Respondent
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Mr. D.P.S.Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the respondent.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 12.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) (passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which the revision petition preferred by the respondent against the order of the Trial Court dismissing her complaint was accepted) and consequent order dated 16.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) (passed by JMIC Jalandhar pursuant to order dated 12.9.2006).
Petitioner no.1 is a retired Principal of a college namely, Mehar Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar City whereas petitioner no.2 aged 64 years and petitioner no.3 are retired employees from the same college. All of them are subjected to the allegations in a complaint which has been preferred by the complainant-respondent under the provisions of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The learned Trial Court before whom the complaint was filed concluded that no offence under the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has been shown to have been committed by the petitioners herein for the simple reason that the complainant has not produced certificate showing that she was belonging to Scheduled Caste.
A revision petition was preferred by the complainantrespondent against the said order, which was accepted and the Trial Court was directed to procure the presence of the petitioners as accused and to
proceed against them in accordance with law. This has resulted in the filing of the present petition in which it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no averment in the complaint that the complainant-respondent belong to Scheduled Castes and this fact was known to the petitioners. Therefore, it is his contention that even if the words uttered to her by them and the allegations are taken to be correct, the petitioners cannot be proceeded against for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act for the simple reason that ingredients of the said Section are not satisfied.
Therefore, the complaint and all consequent proceedings and summoning order deserve to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent had been able to show the certificate that she belongs to Scheduled Caste before the Revisional Authority and therefore,
there is no occasion for the proceedings to be quashed. He has contended that the powers under Section 482 should be exercised in rare cases and not ordinarily in cases which enhance social justice.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the complaint and the summoning order dated 12.9.2006.
The complaint against the petitioners has been initiated pursuant to the provision of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act which are reproduced herein for ready reference:-
Whosoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -
(i)to (ix) -
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (xi) to (xv) - - - - - - shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine
A perusal of the aforesaid provision of law makes it abundantly clear that intention and knowledge to commit the aforesaid offence are essential ingredients of the offence. It is also imperative that a person who allegedly commits such a offence is attributed the knowledge of the person so abused with the offensive words as belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
When a complaint is initiated against a person, these two ingredients automatically form essential bed-rock of the allegations and if the complaint is lacking in these, prima facie the Court cannot record a
conclusion that a case has been made out sufficiently so as to warrant summoning of an accused under the aforesaid provisions of law. The Court is not expected to act mechanically and summon an accused and it necessarily has to apply its mind to the averments made in the complaint and reconcile them with the provisions of law and if the averments made in the complaint satisfy the essentials of law then necessarily summon the accused and not otherwise. Offence so alleged against a person has to be manifest from the allegations in the complaint.
In the instant case, if the entire complaint is perused there is not even a single word mentioned by the complainant that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and that the petitioners intentionally and knowing her to be a member of the Scheduled Caste had uttered the words attributed to them so as to insult her.
If the impugned order (Annexure P-3) is to be perused then in para no.7 the Revisional Court has observed as follows:-
Para 7 :- Without commenting further with regard to the impugned order this revisioner Court is of the opinion that dismissing the complaint by the lower Court simply stating that complainant has not adduced her caste certificate is not legal and valid one while sufficient evidence is on the file that she belong to Scheduled Caste category (Adharmi) that is why she has approached to Bhartiya Balmiki Adharam Samaj (Regd.) Working of the complainant as Sweeper itself indicates that she belongs to the SC community, copy of caste certificate attached in revision. In the society no example exists that any of the person belonging to the general category would work as Sweeper.
The aforesaid reasoning is absurd to say the least and the reasoning blatantly perverse and cannot be sustained under any circumstances.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts that the complaint itself does not disclose the commission of any offence and lacks in material particulars and also the fact that the order of the Revisional Court is based
on unsustainable reasoning, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint (Annexure P-1), consequent summoning order dated 12.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 16.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.
Petition stands allowed.
Summary: Mehr Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar Punjab website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.