PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. Case Summary You Can Listen To on Caseon

0 06 Feb, 2015
Listen in mins | Read in 58:00 mins

PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Supreme Court Of India Civil Appeal /8224/2012

Link copied!

Case Background

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case

Hello! How can I help you? 😊

Disclaimer: We do not store your data.

Document Text Version

Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8224 OF 2012

PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against

the impugned judgment dated 1

March, 2012 passed by the High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2547 of

2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the

writ petition, upheld Para 6 of the Annexure to Ordinance XI

of University of Delhi and refused to interfere with the show

cause notice issued on the appellant and the memorandum(s) by

which the appellant was punished and removed from the service

of the Delhi University.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-

The appellant was a Professor in the University of Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the, ‘University’). According to

the appellant while serving in the University he wrote a

letter dated 1

December, 1990 addressed to the Union Minister

of State for Welfare requesting sanction of Rs.5 crores for

starting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research

Page 2 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘ACBR’). In response to the

said letter, office of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Centenary Celebration

under Ministry of Welfare by letter dated 22

January, 1991

invited the appellant to submit a detailed project report for

the establishment of ACBR commemorating birth centenary of Dr.

B.R. Ambedkar. On 15

March, 1991, the University forwarded

the proposal submitted by the appellant for establishment of

ACBR in the University and necessary certificate was given to

the Government of India by the University, especially in

respect of autonomy of the ACBR. The Central Government

accepted the proposal and the Prime Minister laid down the

foundation stone of ACBR. The Executive Council of the

University vide Resolution dated 13

April, 1991 approved the

project proposal for setting up ACBR and appointed a Committee

to finalize the academic plan and ordinances. Ordinance XX of

the University relates to Colleges and Institutions maintained

by the University including ACBR. A Committee under the

Chairmanship of Vice-Chancellor of the University in its

meeting held on 4

November, 1991 recommended the appellant’s

name to function as Director till a regular appointment is

made. The Academic Council by its decision dated 20

December,

1991 approved the said recommendation and further recommended

the Executive Council to appoint the appellant as Director

till a regular appointment is made. The Executive Council vide

its Resolution No.243 (1) dated 15

February, 1992 accepted

and approved the recommendations of the Academic Council.

Pursuant to the said Resolution, the Assistant Registrar (E-

Page 3 NT) issued a letter dated 30

May, 1995 informing the

appellant about the decision of the Vice Chancellor,

appointing him as the Director of ACBR till a regular

appointment is made to the said post.

2.1) The appellant was already functioning as Professor in

the Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi. He was Joint

Proctor in the University between 1996 and 1999 and during

this period he was a Visiting Scientist at the Rockefeller

University, Cornell University - Medical College, Oxford

University and several other Universities and institutes. The

appellant was also functioning as Chairman of Board of

Research Studies, Faculty of Science and Chairman of

Publication Advisory Committee, University of Delhi during the

said period.

2.2)Further case of the appellant is that he was appointed as

Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in March, 1999

and the same was informed to respondent no.3-Governing Body of

ACBR. According to appellant, the Governing Body resolved that

the appellant will continue as Director even after taking

charge as the Vice Chancellor in another University i.e.

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. On 30

July,

1999, the Chairman of the Governing Body, ACBR informed the

Vice Chancellor of the University about the said decision.

2.3) On 20

September, 1999, the Registrar of University

notified that the Vice Chancellor had appointed Professor Vani

Brahmachari as Officiating Director, ACBR during the leave

Page 4 period of the appellant and specified that the appellant will

continue to provide Academic Leadership to the ACBR.

2.4)On 6

October, 2000, respondent no.3 resolved that the

appellant should continue to provide help and guidance, though

he was functioning as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University.

However, it was specified that in absence of the appellant,

Dr. Vani Brahmachari will look after the day to day work of

the office. Respondent no.3-Governing Body, ACBR vide its

resolution no.6-74 dated 6

October, 2000 resolved to get the

ACBR registered under Societies Act and then to approach the

UGC and Government of India for declaring the ACBR as

Institute of National importance. It was decided to prepare a

draft and circulate to the members of the Governing Body to

discuss the matter in the next meeting.

2.5) Further case of the appellant is that respondent no.3-

Governing Body of ACBR vide its resolution dated 15

September, 2001 considered and approved the draft of

Memorandum of Association of ACBR which was forwarded to the

University for information and necessary action.

2.6) In February, 2005, a Search Committee for selection for

the post of Vice Chancellor in University was constituted. The

appellant as well as respondent no.2-Professor Deepak Pental

were candidates whose names were initially short listed by the

Search Committee. In the meantime, the appellant was removed

from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University,

Page 5 Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh by order dated 16

July, 2005 fifteen

days prior to the expiry of his tenure.

2.7)The aforesaid order of removal was challenged by the

appellant by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.51370

of 2005 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Prof. Deepak Pental was officiating as Pro-Vice Chancellor,

University of Delhi during that time. According to the

appellant, the said officiating Pro-Vice-Chancellor was not in

the office on 18

July, 2005 and the said fact came to his

knowledge when he contacted the officiating Vice Chancellor to

inform him about his removal from the Bundelkhand University.

The appellant also informed the same to the Head, Department

of Chemistry; Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Delhi;

Chairman, Governing Body, ACBR and Dy. Registrar, ACBR.

Further, according to the appellant, on the same day i.e. on

July, 2005, he gave his joining report to the University

of Delhi but it was not accepted. The appellant came to know

the same from the Head of Chemistry Department who had

received a letter from the Registrar, Delhi University

regarding removal of the appellant from Bundelkhand University

and hence he was informed that his joining would be subject to

the clearance from the Chancellor of Bundelkhand University.

The Registrar, University of Delhi wrote letters to the

Commissioner of Jhansi, who was acting Vice Chancellor of

Bundelkhand University u/s 12(10) of the U.P. State

Universities Act, 1973, the Principal Secretary to the

Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University,

Page 6 Jhansi) and the Registrar, Bundelkhand University requesting

them to supply information regarding curtailment of the tenure

of the appellant. The Principal Secretary to the Governor of

Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University) replied to

the letter on 26

July, 2005 giving details regarding removal

of the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand

University. On 28

July, 2005, the Principal Secretary to the

Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University)

further informed the Registrar, University of Delhi that as

per the directions of the High Court, the appellant stood

relieved from 16

July, 2005 and subsequently, the appellant

was also informed vide letter dated 8

August, 2005 that since

he was relieved from 16

July, 2005 no further action was

required from Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University. The

Registrar, Bundelkhand University also replied to the

Registrar, University of Delhi on 2

August, 2005 informing

him regarding allegation against the appellant. The Secretary,

UGC addressed a letter to Professor Deepak Pental on 4

August, 2005 informing him about removal of appellant from

Bundelkhand University with copy to the Chancellor for

information and necessary action. On 4

August, 2005 a note

was endorsed by Prof. Deepak Pental on the letter of UGC to

the effect that “summary of the charges against Prof. Ramesh

Chandra needs to be made”. According to the appellant, such

note was given by Prof. Deepak Pental with a mala fide

intention of involving appellant in some controversy so that

his name would be dropped from the list of the Search

Page 7 Committee as contender for the post of Vice Chancellor,

University of Delhi. The name of the appellant was dropped

and on 1

September, 2005, Prof. Deepak Pental was appointed

as Vice Chancellor of University of Delhi.

2.8)The appellant has alleged mala fide against Dr. Deepak

Pental and has taken plea that Prof. Pental did not stop

harassing the appellant even thereafter . He further alleged

that after his removal from the Bundelkhand University, his

joining to Delhi University was accepted w.e.f. 18

July,

2005. He also placed reliance on decision of Governing Body of

ACBR wherein it was recorded that the appellant would continue

to function as Acting Director (Hony.), ACBR. The said

resolution of the Governing Body was forwarded to the Vice

Chancellor of the University of Delhi. The Chairman of the

Governing Body, ACBR wrote a letter on 23

September, 2005 to

the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University regarding its stand on

the position of the appellant in ACBR. The Executive Council

of the University of Delhi passed a resolution no.132 on 17

October, 2005 that the appellant will not be allowed to hold

any administrative position in Delhi University henceforth and

resolved to issue a show cause notice to the appellant for

(a) suppressing information with regard to allegation on

account of which he was removed from the post of Vice-

Chancellor University at the time of his premature return to

Delhi University and (b) unauthorisedly assuming the office of

the Director, ACBR, Delhi University for the period from

18.7.2005 to 24.7.2005 in contravention of the statutory

Page 8 provisions of the University. It was also resolved that the

decision, if any, taken by or at the instance of the appellant

while unauthorisedly occupying the post of the Director, ACBR,

or thereafter, be treated as null and void.

2.9) On 2

November, 2005 a memorandum was issued to the

appellant containing the allegations set out in the Resolution

dated 17

October, 2005 and calling upon the appellant to

submit his explanation.

2.10) The appellant submitted his reply on 12

December,

2005 and requested for supply of certain documents. According

to him, the documents were not supplied to him.

2.11) Further case of the appellant is that the Governing Body

of ACBR after considering all the communications from the

Registrar, University of Delhi and the Executive Council

Resolution No.132 dated 17

October, 2005 reiterated its

earlier decision authorizing the appellant to act as Director

of the ACBR and to take necessary decisions in that capacity

until a regular appointment is made. The Governing Body of

ACBR further authorized the Chairman and the Director to

complete all formalities for converting it into an autonomous

institution so that ACBR could be converted to a deemed

University and an institution of national importance by the

next academic session.

2.12) On 2

January, 2006 the Registrar, University of Delhi

issued an office order that consequent upon Dr. Vani

Brahmachari proceeding on leave Dr. Daman Saluja would look

Page 9 after the day to day work of the office of Director, ACBR

until further orders. On 25

January, 2006 the Registrar of

the University forwarded another memorandum calling upon

appellant’s explanation w.r.t. memorandum dated 2

November,

2005 within fifteen days. The appellant submitted his final

reply on 8

February, 2006.

2.13) It appears that the appellant in the meantime moved an

appeal before the Executive Council against Resolution dated

October, 2005 but no decision appears to have been taken.

The Governing Body of ACBR continued with its efforts towards

registration of the Centre as a Society. On 5

September,

2006, the appellant was instructed by the Governing Body to

file documents for the registration of the ACBR with the

Registrar, Societies, Govt. of NCT, to file an approved

affidavit stating that the ACBR is the legal allottee and is

in possession of the property/premises of the old USIC

Building Delhi University Campus, Delhi and ACBR have no

objection if the registered office of the Society is situated

in the said premises.

2.14) The appellant earlier moved before the High Court in

Writ Petition No.16000 of 2006 challenging the Resolution of

Executive Council dated 17

October, 2005. Allegation of bias

was made against Prof. Deepak Pental therein.

2.15) On 21

March, 2007 Executive Council of the University

passed a resolution to appoint a retired High Court Judge to

hold an inquiry about allegation against the appellant and

Page 10 pending the inquiry to suspend the appellant. A memorandum

dated 22

March, 2007 was issued by the University placing the

appellant under suspension and debarring his entry in the

premises of the University.

2.16) Justice ‘X’ – a retired Judge of the High Court was

appointed to inquire into the allegation against the appellant

and vide letter dated 23

May, 2007 he informed the appellant

of his appointment and called him for the hearing on 4

June,

2007. The appellant moved before the High Court by filing

writ petition praying for stay of all further proceedings

against him.

2.17) In the meantime, the High Court of Allahabad vide its

judgment and order dated 11

June, 2007 in Civil Misc. Writ

Petition No.51370 of 2005 quashed the order dated 16

July,

2007 passed by the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi

regarding the removal of the appellant from the post of Vice

Chancellor and held that the removal order was contrary to the

provisions of the UP State Universities Act, 1973.

2.18) The aforesaid fact was intimated to the Vice Chancellor

of University of Delhi on 16

June, 2007 with a request to

withdraw the resolutions and memorandum passed against the

appellant.

2.19) A fresh memorandum was issued by the University on 27

August, 2007 alleging that the appellant has misused the

telephones of the ACBR during the period 1999-2005 though he

was not functioning as Director during the said period.

Page 11 However, the Inquiry Officer recorded that in view of the

discussions and reply submitted none of the charges were

proved and the appellant was absolved of the charges.

2.20) Another memorandum was issued by the University on 16

October, 2007 imputing charges of misconduct against the

appellant and the appellant was asked to submit his written

explanation to the said memorandum within fifteen days.

2.21) The writ petition being W.P.C. No.16000 of 2006

preferred by the appellant challenging the Resolution dated

October, 205 was dismissed on 11

April, 2008. In the

meantime, the appellant was informed by Justice ‘X’ Inquiry

Officer vide letter dated 5

May, 2008 that another inquiry

was being initiated in respect of memorandum dated 16

October, 2007 and asked the appellant to take part in the

inquiry. In the meantime, the prayer of the appellant for

review of the order of suspension was also rejected.

Therefore, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.4436 of 2008

challenging the resolution dated 21

March, 2007 and

memorandum dated 22

March, 2007. The appellant being

aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.C.

No.16000 of 2006 preferred LPA No.229 of 2008. The said LPA

No.229 of 2008 was heard along with Writ Petition No.4436 of

2008 and both were dismissed by the High Court by common

judgment dated 21

May, 2009.

2.22) The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment by

filing the Special Leave Petition Nos.13753 and 14150 of 2009

Page 12 before this Court. In the said case the appellant alleged

bias against the Vice Chancellor Prof. Deepak Pental in the

matter of issuance of the charge sheet. This Court initially

vide order dated 18

September, 2009 directed the respondent

to conclude the inquiry against the appellant within two

months. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry pursuant to

Memorandum dated 2

November, 2005 and submitted his report on

October, 2009. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded

to the appellant. According to the appellant, Inquiry Officer

neither allowed oral evidences nor supplied relevant documents

sought by him. The appellant submitted his reply to the said

report on 28

January, 2010.

2.23) On 19

December, 2009 the Inquiry Officer concluded the

inquiry pursuant to memorandum dated 27

August, 2007 and 16

October, 2007 and submitted his reports, both dated 23

February, 2010. A copy of the inquiry report pursuant to

memorandum dated 16

October, 2007 was forwarded to the

appellant asking him to submit his reply within twenty one

days. The appellant requested the Registrar, University of

Delhi to supply certain documents which were referred to by

the Inquiry Officer and submitted interim reply on 18

March,

2010. Subsequently, the Executive Council passed Resolution

No.281 dated 25

March, 2010 disengaging the appellant from

the services with immediate effect and subsequently a

memorandum dated 26

March, 2010 was issued to the said

effect. The aforesaid decision was communicated to the

appellant by the Registrar.

Page 13 2.24) This Court on 5

April, 2010 dismissed the SLP(C)

Nos.13753 of 2009 and 14150 of 2009 filed by the appellant

challenging the High Court order dated 21

May, 2009 in LPA

No.229 of 2008 but granted the liberty to the appellant to

challenge the punitive orders. The appellant was permitted to

take all the pleas taken in the SLP including the challenge to

the validity and propriety of the inquiry proceedings

conducted by the University of Delhi. Pursuant to the said

order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2547 of 2010

before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which was

dismissed by impugned judgment dated 1

March, 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there

was illegality and unfairness in the initiation and conduct of

inquiry in regard to the allegations which led to the removal

of appellant. It was also submitted that the Chancellor

(Bundelkhand University) has not written to Delhi University

suggesting action to be taken against the appellant. Despite

the same, information regarding contents of charges was

solicited unilaterally by the Registrar of Delhi University

based on newspaper reports and the communication dated 4

August, 2005 sent by the UGC to the Vice Chancellor of

University. Learned counsel further contended that in the

absence of Chancellor, Bundelkhand University suggesting

action against the appellant, the UGC need not have, even sent

the above communication.

However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted as

it was always open to the competent authority to initiate

Page 14 departmental proceeding against its employee, with regard to

any misconduct or dereliction of duty if found during

performance of duty while posted in the office or on

deputation. In the present case, it was well within the

jurisdiction of the university to initiate such a departmental

inquiry when it is noticed that its employee was prematurely

removed from an office to which he was deputed to on account

of certain charges against him.

4. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that

none of the memoranda relating to disciplinary action were

ever placed before the Executive Council, therefore, memoranda

cannot be said to be charges or allegations considered or

approved by the Executive Council (Disciplinary Authority).

The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of

the stand taken by the University and the material on record.

The counsel for the respondents was directed to produce

the original record relating to all the proceedings/memoranda,

all articles of charges including the office note and inquiry

report. However, only the record relating to memorandum dated

October, 2007 has been provided. We have perused the

original record produced by the respondents and find no

illegality in the manner of initiation of departmental

proceeding as the same was initiated as per Executive Council

Resolution No. 188 dated 21

March, 2007.

5. It was further submitted that the appellant could not

file the proper reply to all the three memoranda due to non

Page 15 supply of documents sought by him towards submitting an

effective reply. However, such submission cannot be accepted

in absence of specific pleading as to which were the documents

sought for but not supplied by the respondents and how they

were connected with the charges leveled against the appellant.

6. Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the

appellant was that there were illegalities in the conduct of

the inquiry. According to him the appellant requested the

assistance of a legal practitioner as the presenting officer

as well as the Inquiry Officer was legally qualified person

regularly engaged in disciplinary proceedings but the said

request was declined. It was further submitted that the

appellant was not given opportunity for examination of witness

and there was no legal evidence before the Inquiry Officer to

bring home the charges.

We have gone through the inquiry report(s) submitted by

the Inquiry Officer and other records. The aforesaid

submission advanced on behalf of the appellant will be

discussed at an appropriate stage.

7. With regard to appellant’s allegation of mala fide

against Prof. Deepak Pental, it was rightly contented on

behalf of the respondents that in view of earlier decision of

this Court in special leave petition preferred by the

appellant and in absence of any specific evidence, plea of

mala fide cannot be raised.

Page 16 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that

the service of the appellant was terminated without providing

any notice as provided for in para 6 of the Annexure to

Ordinance XI which reads as follows:-

“6.(1)Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore

contained, the Executive Council of the University

shall be entitled summarily to determine the

engagement of the teacher on the ground of

misconduct in accordance with the provisions

hereinafter set forth.

(2) The Vice-Chancellor may, when he deems it

necessary, suspend the teacher on the ground of

misconduct. When he suspends the teacher, he

shall report it to the next meeting of the

Executive Council.

(3) The Executive Council shall investigate all

matters reported to it by the Vice-Chancellor

about the misconduct of the teacher whether he has

been suspended or not. The Executive Council may

appoint a Committee for the purpose. The teacher

shall be notified in writing of the charges

against him and shall be given not less than three

weeks’ time to submit his explanation in writing.

The Executive Council or the Committee may hear

the teacher and take such evidence as it may

consider necessary. The Executive Council may

determine the engagement of the teacher where it

deems that the misconduct of the teacher deserves

to be dealt within that manner, after it has

considered the explanation and the evidence, if

any, and/or the report of the Committee, if one

has been appointed.

(4) Where the termination of the service on the

ground of misconduct is after suspension by the

Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, the termination of

service may be from the date of suspension, if the

Executive Council so directs.”

9. In the present case, as noticed above, detailed procedure

is followed in terms of said provision. The appellant was

suspended by the Vice-Chancellor on the ground of misconduct.

Notice was served upon the appellant and the Executive Council

Page 17 resolved to conduct an inquiry giving opportunity to the

appellant to appear before the inquiry officer. Disciplinary

authority terminated the service of the appellant after

following all the due procedures. Therefore, the said

submission as advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be

accepted.

10. Before the High Court and this Court, one of the pleas

taken was that the charges as shown in the memoranda do not

constitute any misconduct. The High Court observed that

misconduct though not defined in the Act or in Ordinance XI or

in the Annexure thereto, is a well understood term and

paragraph 6 of Ordinance XI cannot be held to be bad and

liable to be struck down merely for the reason of misconduct

having not been defined.

11. On behalf of appellant, it was further contended that the

departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of rules of

natural justice and extraneous matters were taken into

consideration to hold the appellant guilty. But such

submission was disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the

university.

12.Before dealing with rival contentions made by the learned

counsel for the parties, we deem it proper to deal with the

chargesheet – procedure followed in the departmental

proceedings and order of punishment.

Page 18 A) 1st Chargesheet - memorandum dated 2

November, 2005

The charges levelled against the appellant can be

summarized as follows:

(i) The appellant wilfully suppressed the material

fact that the appellant was removed from the post

of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi

before the completion of term of his deputation, to

mislead the University.

(ii) The appellant wrote letter dated 8

August,

2005 to the Vice Chancellor in which he signed as

Founder Director of ACBR knowing well that the term

‘Founder Director’ gave a misleading impression

that he was the founder and was continuing as its

Director. Further there is no such post as Founder

Director

(iii) He has written other letters that gives

misleading impression about his status.

Before dealing with the correctness of the above

allegations, we would like to discuss the background events

which took place prior to the issuance of the said memorandum.

13.The Executive Council of the University of Delhi by its

Resolution dated 17

October, 2005 first decided to punish the

appellant for his alleged acts and to issue a show-cause

notice to the appellant. This is apparent from the Resolution

No.132 dated 17

October, 2005 which reads as follows:

“132.The Executive Council considered

letters received from (a) the Principal

Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh

dated 26.7.2005, (b) the Registrar,

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi dated 2.8.2005,

and (c) the Joint Secretary, UGC dated

4.8.2005 forwarding therewith a copy of the

order of the Chancellor of Bundelkhand

Page 19 University dated 16.7.2005 indicating removal

of Prof. Ramesh Chandra from the post of the

Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University. After

due deliberations on the above mentioned

letters, the Council resolved that:

(i)Prof. Ramesh Chandra be not allowed to

hold any administrative position in

Delhi University henceforth:

(ii)A show cause notice be issued to Prof.

Ramesh Chandra for (a suppressing

information with regard to allegation on

account of which he was removed from the

post of Vice-Chancellor University at

the time of his premature return to

Delhi University and (b) unauthorisedly

assuming the office of the Director,

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Bio-

medical Research, Delhi University for

the period from 18.7.2005 to 24.7.2005

in contravention of the statutory

provisions of the University; and

(iii)The decision, if any, taken by or at

the instance of Prof. Ramesh Chandra,

while unauthorisedly occupying the post

of the Director, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Centre for Biomedical Research, or

thereafter, be treated as null and

void."

It is only after such decision to punish the appellant

the formal chargesheet was issued by memorandum dated 2

November, 2005 as quoted hereunder:

“UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

No. Estab. V(T)/2005/2083

November 2, 2005.

MEMORANDUM

Whereas it is noted that Prof. Ramesh

Chandra, Department of Chemistry, vide his

letter dated 18thJuly, 2005 addressed to the

Vice-Chancellor conveyed that after completing

his tenure as Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand

University, he had returned back and reported

for duty as Professor in the Department of

Chemistry with effect from 18.7.2005 by this

statement. Prof. Ramesh Chandra willfully

suppressed the material fact that he was

removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor,

Bundelkhand University before the completion of

Page 20 the term of his deputation, to mislead the

University authority.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra, on

reporting for duty in the University,

unauthorisedly tried to join as Director, ACBR

as is evident from the notification No.

ACBR/05/743 dated 18.7.2005 issued by the

Deputy Registrar, ACBR which stated that Prof.

Ramesh Chandra had joined back as fulltime

Director of ACBR in the afternoon of 18.7.2005

after completing the tenure as Vice-Chancellor,

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. This

notification (a) conveyed a misleading

impression that he had joined there after

completion of tenure as Vice-Chancellor of

Bundelkhand University whereas he was actually

removed from the post on charges of abuse of

power before completion of his tenure; and (b)

misleadingly referred to Establ.

V(T)/99/ACBR/35657 dated 20

September, 1999 to

wrongly convey that as per this order he could

join as full-time Director. The Order

No.Estab. (T)V/99/ACBR/35657 dated 20.9.1999

deals with appointment of Prof. Vani

Brahamchari as officiating Director and

specified the period of her office as the

period during the leave of Prof. Ramesh Chandra

and merely permitted Prof. Ramesh Chandra to

provide academic leadership to ACBR. This

arrangement at that point of time and

consequently ATTEMPT OF Prof. Ramesh Chandra to

join as Director of ACBR was ultra vires, and

therefore, null and void ab initio. Then at the

instance of this University’s letter dated

19.7.2005 clarified that the notification for

Prof. Ramesh Chandra’s joining as Director

stands withdrawn:

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra wrote a

letter dated 8.8.2005 to the Vice-Chancellor,

in which he signed as Founder Director, ACBR,

knowing well that the term ‘founder director’

gave a misleading impression that he was the

‘founder director of the Centre or was the

founder and was continuing as its Director.

When Prof. Ramesh Chandra was placed in

additional charge of the post of Director of

ACBR vide letter No. Estab.III/BRAC/95 dated

30.5.2005, his substantive post was that of a

professor of Chemistry in the University. All

incumbent moves away from his substantive post

on deputation/EOL. Further, there is no such

post as founder director. Therefore, signing

a letter addressed to the Vice-Chancellor on

8.8.2005 as founder director ;was clearly to

give a misleading impression about its position

in ACBR which besides being non-existent, was

neither legally sustainable nor

Page 21 administratively proper because Prof. Ramesh

Chandra was appointed in the Chemistry

Department of the Delhi University and not

appointed/deputed to ACBR as Professor;

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had further

written letters dated 9.9.2005 and 26.9.2005

on the letter pad of ACBR signing as Director

which seeks to convey a misleading impression

about his status. He wrote to the Chairman of

the Governing Body, ACBR vide his letter dated

30.8.2005. In which he had referred to some

decisions of the governing body to resume as

Director of ACBR. This act of Prof. Ramesh

Chandra tantamount to seeking perpetuation of

the same misleading impression as indicated

above.

And whereas the University had clarified the

position with regard to the post of

Director, ACBR vide its letter no.

SPA/R2005/2007 dated 29.8.2005 addressed to

the Chairman of the Governing body of ACBR with

copy to the officiating Director of ACBR in

which it was clearly stated that there was no

provision of retaining lien on the additional

charge and that Prof. Vani Brahmachari continue

to be the officiating Director until a regular

director was appointed.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra’s

unauthorized and irregular attempts of

usurpation to the post of Director ACBR

tantamount to creation of false records and

tampering with other records of ACBR which is a

serious misconduct on his part.

And whereas the above acts of Prof. Ramesh

Chandra on irregularly insisting on his

position as additional charge of the Director

in the ACBR without having undergone the

process of selection prescribed in clauses 4 of

sub-heading 6 on ACBR contained in Ordinance

XX tantamount to gross misconduct within the

meaning of clause 6 of Annexure to Ordinance XI

of the University.

And whereas some of the examples of

misconduct on the part of Prof. Ramesh Chandra,

particularly, the suppression of facts of his

removal from the post of Vice Chancellor of

Bundelkhand University to convey misleading

impression that he repatriated from Bundelkhand

University after completing his tenure and the

unauthorized claim about directorship of ACBR

were discussed by the Executive Council in its

meeting on 17

October, 2005 and the Executive

Council decided that his explanation be called

Page 22 for his above mentioned acts of serious

misconduct;

Now, therefore, Prof. Ramesh Chandra is

hereby directed to submit in writing an

explanation to this memorandum within 15 days

of its date of issue, failing which it shall

be presumed that he has no explanation to offer

and the matter shall be placed before EC for

consideration/action in accordance with Clause

6 of Ordinance XI of the University of Delhi.

Registrar

Prof. Ramesh Chandra

Department of Chemistry

University of Delhi

Delhi.”

14.The retired Judge of Delhi High Court, Justice ‘X’,

Inquiry Officer, by the report dated 24

November, 2009 held

as follows:

“For all these reasons, I am of the

opinion that the charges against the delinquent

that he had concealed the fact of his removal

from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand

University with a view to mislead the

University and that despite his not being

Director of ACBR, he continued to describe

himself as Founder Director or Director, ACBR

with a view to give a misleading impression,

stand proved.

‘X’

Dated: 24.11.2009 Inquiry Officer

//TRUE COPY//”

Thereafter the formal order of punishment was issued by

memorandum dated 22

February, 2010 communicating displeasure

of the Executive Council, holding the act of the appellant to

be unbecoming of a teacher of the University and prohibiting

the appellant from being associated with any affairs of ACBR

in any capacity whatsoever. The relevant portion of the said

memorandum reads as follows:

Page 23 “And, therefore, Prof. Ramesh Chandra

(under suspension) is hereby communicated

the displeasure of the Executive Council

and that the act is unbecoming of a

teacher of the University. Prof. Ramesh

Chandra (under suspension) is further

communicated the decision of the Executive

Council that he shall not be associated

with any affairs of the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Centre for Biomedical Research in any

capacity whatsoever and that he shall not

be considered for any administrative

position in the University. Prof. Ramesh

Chandra shall continue to be under

suspension till further orders.”

From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the respondent

first decided to punish the appellant and only thereafter

memorandum of charges was framed, show-cause notice was

issued and inquiry was conducted, just to give it a colour of

legal procedure.

15. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the

appellant ‘wilfully’ suppressed the material fact that he was

removed from service before completion of term of his

deputation to mislead the respondents. It is true that the

appellant in normal course should have informed the Delhi

University before rejoining that he has been removed from the

post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi before

the completion of his deputation period. Such action can be

termed to be “dereliction of duty” but cannot be held to be

misconduct for the purpose of restraining the appellant

permanently from appointment to the post of Director, ACBR.

16. It is not in dispute that the appellant was the First

Director of the ACBR. The same was also accepted by the Delhi

University in its memorandum dated 2

November, 2005.

Page 24 Therefore, in his letter-head he has shown him as Founder

Director of ACBR, that cannot be said to be against the Code

of Conduct to hold the same as ‘misconduct’ on the part of the

appellant.

17.This apart, as there is no provision in the concerned

statute to withhold appointment permanently, it was not open

to the University to pass such order.

For the reasons aforesaid, the order of punishment

contained in Memorandum dated 22

February, 2010 cannot be

upheld. The said memorandum is accordingly declared illegal

and cannot be upheld.

Page 25 B) 2

Chargesheet – Memorandum dated 27

August, 2007:

18.A fresh memorandum was issued by the University on 27

August, 2007 alleging that the appellant caused ACBR to pay an

amount of Rs.16,63,284/- towards unauthorized expenditures

incurred by him like telephone bills and bills of security

guards and peon, during the period 1999-2005 though he was not

functioning as Director of ACBR during the said period.

The appellant denied the allegation and again retired

Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice ‘X’ was appointed as

Inquiry Officer who by his report dated 23

February, 2010

held that none of the charges against the appellant has been

proved. Relevant portion of the said inquiry report reads as

follows:

“In view of the above discussion,

none of the charges against the delinquent

has been proved and he is, therefore,

absolved of all the charges against him

leveled vide the memorandum dated 27

August, 2007.

Justice ‘X’, (Retd.)

Dated: 23.02.2010 Inquiry Officer”

C) 3

Chargesheet – Memorandum dated 16

October, 2007:

19.In the memorandum dated 16

October, 2007 the appellant

was imputed with the charge which can be summarized as

follows:

By acting as a signatory who subscribed his name to the

registration of ACBR as a society and by verifying the

affidavit which affirmed that he has no objection towards the

location of the registered office of ACBR in the University

Page 26 Campus, the appellant attempted to misappropriate the assets

of the University. Such act was alleged to be a misconduct.

The memorandum dated 16

October, 2007 reads as follows:

“MEMORANDUM

Whereas it has come to the notice of the

University that Prof. Ramesh Chandra is

one of the signatories who subscribed

their names to the proposed formation of a

Society by the name “Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Centre for Biomedical Research” with the

description of its office as “old USIC

Building Delhi University Campus, Delhi-

7”. As per the records of the Registrar

of Societies Delhi this society has been

registered on 7.9.2006 vide Registration

No.56511. This is in violation of rules

and regulations of the University. Dr.

B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical

Research (ABCR) is an institution

maintained by the University. The

University has not resolved or

contemplated to form a society out of the

existing ACBR. Since the proposal in the

society registered on 7.9.2006 has shown

the existing ACBR under the University of

Delhi as its address it tantamount to

misappropriation of the assets of

University maintained institution for an

unauthorized purpose. Thus, such a move is

fraudulent.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had given

an affidavit which was verified by him on

5.9.06 which he had solemnly affirmed

that

“I shall have no objection if the

registered office of the society named

“Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical

Research’ shall be situated at my above

said premises.” The building in which

the ACBR of the University of Delhi is

situated is the property of the

University and no one has any right

whatsoever to appropriate it for any

purpose other than what the Executive

Council of the University authorizes.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had no

locus standi to give any such affirmation

still had solemnly affirmed in the same

affidavit that “ACBR is the legal

allottee and in possession of the

property bearing no. Old USIC building

Delhi University Campus Delhi-7” which is

Page 27 contrary to the facts. The fact is that

the premises where the ACBR of the

University of Delhi is presently located

(i.e. old USIC building University of

Delhi, Delhi-7) was not allotted by

University of Delhi to the proposed

society which was fraudulently registered

on 7.9.2006.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra verified

the above mentioned affidavit on 5.9.2006

saying “that the contents of the above

affidavit are correct, true and to the

best of my knowledge and belief nothing

has been concealed therefrom”. But while

verifying this affidavit on 5.9.2006 he

fraudulently concealed a material fact

that the authorized body of the

University of Delhi i.e. the Executive

Council had not resolved to convert ACBR

into a registered society. He also

concealed the fact that he being a

Professor in the Department of Chemistry

had no official position to furnish such

affidavit and therefore this act of Prof.

Ramesh Chandra tantamount to fraudulent

misrepresentation of facts with a

malafide motive.

And whereas the above acts of Prof.

Ramesh Chandra constitute misconduct by

misleading the Registrar of societies

Govt. of NCT Delhi and also the general

public by fraudulently attempting to

convert an University of Delhi as a

registered society and clandestinely

declaring Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre for

Biomedical Research as a Society and its

building as its registered office which

tantamounts to misappropriation of the

University’s property.”

20.The appellant submitted his explanation denying the

allegation and requested for supply of documents towards

submitting an effective reply. But the same were not supplied.

He also sought aid of a lawyer but it was also denied. Nothing

is on the record to suggest that any list of witnesses or list

of documentary evidence was supplied to the appellant or to

the Inquiry Officer. We have gone through the original records

supplied by the University. Even therein, we find no list of

Page 28 witnesses or list of evidence available to bring home the

charges.

(Retd.)Justice ‘X’ who was again appointed as the Inquiry

Officer with regard to said charges, submitted a report dated

February, 2010, holding that the acts of the appellant

giving an affidavit that he had no objection towards the

registration of the ACBR as a Society situated at the said

premises, and getting the Society registered without the

approval of the University of Delhi, are clearly the acts of

misconduct. The relevant extract of the inquiry report dated

February, 2010 (relating to the third chargesheet) reads

as follows:

x x x x x

“The delinquent in the year 1992 was

working as UGC Research Scientist attached

to the Department of Chemistry, University

of Delhi. The Executive Council of the

University of Delhi in its meeting held on

February, 1992 approved the setting up

of B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Bio-medical

Research (in short referred to as ACBR)

and the delinquent while working as UGC

Research Scientist was allowed to function

as officiating Director of ACBR vide order

dated 30

May, 1995 till regular

appointment of the Director of the Centre

was made. With effect from 25

June, 1996

the delinquent is serving as Professor in

the Department of Chemistry, University of

Delhi, even after his appointment as

Professor in the Department of Chemistry,

he continued to work as Director, ACBR

till he was relieved from the post of

Professor in Chemistry to take up the

appointment of Vice-Chancellor,

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi on 31

July, 1999. On his appointment as Vice-

Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, the

delinquent sought extraordinary leave with

a lien in his substantive post of

Professor, Department of Chemistry to

enable him to join as Vice-Chancellor,

Bundelkhand Univesity and his request was

Page 29 allowed by the Executive Council of the

University. On his taking over as Vice-

Chancellor, Bundelkhand Univesity, the

University of Delhi vide notification

dated 20

September, 1999 appointed Prof.

Vani Brahmachari as the Officiating

Director, ACBR.

In accordance with his request dated

July, 2002 the extraordinary leave of

the delinquent was converted into

deputation service. The period of

deputation was to expire on 31

July 2005.

On 13

July, 2005, however, the delinquent

came back and wrote a letter to the

University that after completing his

tenure as Vice-Chancellor, he had returned

back and reported for duty as Professor,

Department of Chemistry, University of

Delhi. It appears that on 18

July, 2005

itself, a news item appeared in the

newspaper according to which the

delinquent was removed as Vice-Chancellor,

Bundelkhand University and the Registrar,

Delhi University, therefore, on the same

day, wrote a letter to the Commissioner,

Jhansi and Principal Secretary to the

Governor of Uttar Pradesh regarding the

authenticity of the newspaper report. It

is the case of the University that though

the delinquent had joined his substantive

post as Professor, Department of Chemistry

but he tried to clandestinely work as full

time Director, ACBR under the garb of

notification dated 18

July, 2005 of ACBR

issued under the signatures of the Deputy

Registrar of the said Centre. On coming to

know of the notification, a note was put

up by the Registrar to the Acting Vice-

Chancellor about the same and on the same

day, the Registrar asked the Deputy

Registrar, ACBR to withdraw the

notification dated 18

July, 2005 whereby

the delinquent was asked to work as

Director, ACBR. In the meantime, Principal

Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh

vide letter dated 26

July, 2005 informed

the University confirming the removal of

the delinquent as Vice-Chancellor in

pursuance of the order dated 16

July,

2005 passed by the Governor of Uttar

Pradesh in his capacity as Chancellor,

Bundelkhand University. This was pursuant

to some departmental proceedings initiated

against the delinquent for his having

allegedly committed financial

Page 30 irregularities etc. during his tenure as

Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University.

The aforesaid acts of delinquent in not

informing the University that he was

removed as Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand

University and his allegedly usurping the

post of Director, ACBR were considered to

be acts of misconduct by the University

and memorandum dated 2

November, 2005

was, accordingly, issued to him to show

cause why disciplinary proceedings be not

initiated against him. Not being satisfied

with the reply of the delinquent, the

University decided to hold an inquiry and

appointed the undersigned as the Inquiry

Officer. In the said inquiry it was held

that the delinquent had concealed the fact

of his removal from the post of Vice-

Chancellor, Bundelkhand University with a

view to mislead the University and that

despite his not being Director, ACBR, he

continued to describe as founder Director

or Director, ACBR with a view to give a

misleading impression.”

x x x x x

“By their unauthorized acts, the Governing

Body as well as the delinquent had

illegally attempted to convert a

University-maintained institution into a

registered society and its building as

registered office of the society. Out of

the signatories to the memorandum of

association of the society, it is only the

delinquent who is under the employment of

the University and disciplinary

proceedings can, therefore, be initiated

only against the delinquent. In any case

it cannot be the defence of the delinquent

that no action can be initiated against

him as no action is taken against other

signatories to the memorandum of

association of the society. It is only the

delinquent who has given a wrong affidavit

with a view to mislead the authorities.

The delinquent knowing fully that he was

not the Director, ACBR at the relevant

time as he was not appointed to the said

post in accordance with Ordinance XX of

the Ordinances of the University of Delhi

and there were already incumbents on the

post, there was no occasion for him to

describe himself as Director, ACBR. It was

totally illegal and unjustified on his

part to get a society registered even on

the basis of the resolutions of the

Page 31 Governing Body and describe the building

where ACBR is located as his office as his

office and to convert it into the

registered office of the society. The

delinquent could not, in any manner, give

an affidavit that he had no objection if

the registered office of the society is

situate at the premises where ACBR was

located. The delinquent was only a

Professor in the Department of Chemistry

and he was not authorised to give any such

affidavit by the University or even by the

Governing Body to depose that the premises

where the registered office was proposed

to be situated was “his premises”, I am,

therefore, firmly of the opinion that all

these acts of the delinquent giving an

affidavit that he had no objection if the

registered office the society was situated

at the said premises and getting the

society registered without the approval of

the University of Delhi are clearly the

acts of misconduct. Charges against the

delinquent stand proved.”

After supplying a copy of the inquiry report to the

appellant for his response, the University issued impugned

memorandum dated 26

March, 2010 holding that the charges

against the appellant are grave and the same are in a way an

attempt to challenge the powers of the Executive Council with

regard to the general control and supervision of the ACBR, as

an institution established and managed by the University of

Delhi under Ordinance XX(6) of the University. It was further

held that such acts amounts to gross misconduct on the part of

the appellant and the same is unbecoming of a teacher of the

University and thereby disengaged the appellant, with

immediate effect, in terms of Para 6 of Annexure to Ordinance

XI of the University. Relevant portion of the order of

punishment and memorandum dated 26

March, 2010 reads as

follows:

Page 32 “And whereas the Council, vide its

above resolution, noted that the charges

leveled against Prof. Ramesh Chandra are

grave and the same are in a way an attempt

to challenge the powers of the Executive

Council with regard to the general control

and supervision of the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Centre for Biomedical Research, as an

institution established and manage-

University of Delhi under Ordinance XX(6)

of the University, are acts of gross

misconduct on his part and unbecoming of a

teacher of the University.

And whereas the Executive Council

further resolved that the services of

Prof. Ramesh Chandra (under suspension),

as Professor in the Department of

Chemistry be disengaged, with immediate

effect, in terms of clause 6 of Annexure

to Ordinance XI of the University for his

grave misconduct.

And therefore, the services of Prof.

Ramesh Chandra (under suspension) as

Professor in the Department of Chemistry,

University of Delhi stand disengaged, with

immediate effect, in terms of clause 6 of

Annexure to Ordinance XI of the

University.

A copy of the Executive Council

Resolution No.281 dated 25.3.2010 is

enclosed herewith.

Encl: As above(2 pages).

Registrar.”

21.In the inquiry report, the background of appointment of

the appellant since 1992 has been referred, though it had no

connection with charges. No such fact or evidence was brought

regarding the background history of the appellant was

mentioned in the (third) chargesheet nor any such evidence is

on record produced by the University.

The Inquiry Officer noticed the letter of the Principal

Secretary of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor,

Bundelkhand University) dated 28

July, 2005 confirming the

removal of the appellant as the Vice-Chancellor of the

Page 33 University and the order dated 16

July, 2005 passed by the

Governor of U.P. in his capacity of Chancellor, Bundelkhand

University though it was not part of the charges nor such

evidence was cited in the imputed charges or list of evidence.

Similarly, though the memorandum dated 2

November, 2005

or allegation levelled therein was not the part of the third

chargesheet nor cited as evidence by the University, the same

were also relied upon.

Influenced by the aforesaid extraneous facts and

consideration, which are not the part of the chargesheet or

the evidence cited by the University and without intimating

such facts to the appellant the Inquiry Officer held the

appellant guilty.

22.It appears from the record that the ACBR was established

within the premises of Delhi University on an initiative by

the Central Government according to the proposal submitted by

the appellant. The appellant being Director of ACBR, acted in

terms of decision of Governing Body of ACBR, towards making

the ACBR autonomous within the premises of University. In view

of clash of interest between the officials of the University

and the ACBR, one or other action appears to have been taken

against the appellant, as apparent from the memorandum of

punishment dated 26

March, 2010, as quoted below:

“And whereas the Council, vide its

above resolution, noted that the charges

leveled against Prof. Ramesh Chandra are

grave and the same are in a way an attempt

to challenge the powers of the Executive

Council with regard to the general control

and supervision of the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Centre for Biomedical Research, as an

institution established and manage-

Page 34 University of Delhi under Ordinance XX(6)

of the University, are acts of gross

misconduct on his part and unbecoming of a

teacher of the University.”

23.We are not concerned about the bias as alleged against

the 2

respondent- Prof. Deepak Pantal, Ex-Vice Chancellor as

it was not accepted in the first round of litigation.

However, action of the University can be held to be mala

fide and illegal for the reasons as detailed below.

24.Though there was no allegation leveled against the

appellant in the (third) chargesheet that he attempted to

challenge the powers of the Executive Council with regard to

the general control and supervision of the ACBR, as an

institution established and managed by the University of Delhi

but such charge was held to be proved by memorandum dated 26

March, 2010, as noticed and quoted above.

25.Further one ‘note’ given by the Registrar and approved by

the Vice-Chancellor in regard to the departmental inquiry

being relevant, it is desirable to refer and discuss the same.

The original ‘note’ relating to engagement of a retired

Judge of the High Court for conducting inquiry was given by

Registrar of the University on 3

April, 2007. From the said

note dated 3

April, 2007 as approved by the Vice-Chancellor,

we find that Justice ‘X’ a retired Judge of the Delhi High

Court was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the

Departmental Inquiry against the appellant as prior to his

elevation to High Court as a Judge, he was the counsel for the

Delhi University. The relevant portion of the note reads as

follows:

Page 35 “Justice ‘X’ (name changed), retired

Judge of Delhi High Court had, prior to

the elevation to High Court as a Judge,

handled Delhi University cases. He is well

versed with the Delhi University Acts,

Statutes and Ordinances.”

It was in this background the University decided to

engage him as Inquiry Officer.

26.We are of the opinion that if an Hon’ble retired Judge of

a Court before his appointment as a Judge was a lawyer of any

of the party (Delhi University herein), the Disciplinary

Authority should not engage such retired Judge as an Inquiry

Officer, as the other party may allege bias against the

Inquiry Officer and the reputation of the Hon’ble Judge may be

at stake.

The University is directed not to engage any Hon’ble

retired Judge of any Court, who was earlier a counsel of the

University as an Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against

any of its employee.

27.The Inquiry Officer herein being a retired Judge of the

High Court is a person of vast legal acumen and experience.

The Presenting Officer also would be a person who had

sufficient experience in presenting case before Inquiry

Officer. In this background, it is also required to consider

whether an application of a delinquent employee seeking

permission to be represented through a legally trained and

qualified lawyer should be allowed or not.

28.In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar

Raghvendranath Nandkarni and others, (1983) 1 SCC 124, this

Court observed:

Page 36 “10…….Now if the rules prescribed for

such an enquiry did not place an embargo

on the right of the delinquent employee to

be represented by a legal practitioner,

the matter would be in the discretion of

the Enquiry Officer whether looking to the

nature of charges, the type of evidence

and complex or simple issues that may

arise in the course of enquiry, the

delinquent employee in order to afford a

reasonable opportunity to defend himself

should be permitted to appear through a

legal practitioner…….

12………In our view we have reached a stage

in our onward march to fair play in action

that where in an enquiry before a domestic

tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted

against a legally trained mind, if he

seeks permission to appear through a legal

practitioner the refusal to grant this

request would amount to denial of a

reasonable request to defend himself and

the essential principles of natural

justice would be violated……”

29.In J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development

Corporation, (1991) 2 SCC 283, this Court held that the denial

of the assistance of a legal practitioner in inquiry

proceedings would be unfair. This Court held as follows:

“8. It would appear that in the inquiry,

the respondent-Corporation was represented

by its Personnel and Administration

Manager who is stated to be a man of law.

The rule itself recognises that where the

charges are so serious as to entail a

dismissal from service the inquiry

authority may permit the services of a

lawyer. This rule vests a discretion. In

the matter of exercise of this discretion

one of the relevant factors is whether

there is likelihood of the combat being

unequal entailing a miscarriage or failure

of justice and a denial of a real and

reasonable opportunity for defence by

reasons of the appellant being pitted

against a presenting officer who is

trained in law. Legal Adviser and a lawyer

are for this purpose somewhat liberally

Page 37 construed and must include “whoever

assists or advises on facts and in law

must be deemed to be in the position of a

legal adviser”. In the last analysis, a

decision has to be reached on a case to

case basis on the situational

particularities and the special

requirements of justice of the case. It is

unnecessary, therefore, to go into the

larger question “whether as a sequel to an

adverse verdict in a domestic enquiry

serious civil and pecuniary consequences

are likely to ensue, in order to enable

the person so likely to suffer such

consequences with a view to giving him a

reasonable opportunity to defend himself,

on his request, should be permitted to

appear through a legal practitioner” which

was kept open in Board of Trustees of the

Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar8. However, it

was held in that case (SCC p. 132, para

12)

“… In our view we have reached a stage

in our onward march to fair play in action

that where in an enquiry before a domestic

tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted

against a legally trained mind, if he

seeks permission to appear through a legal

practitioner the refusal to grant this

request would amount to denial of a

reasonable request to defend himself and

the essential principles of natural

justice would be violated….”

30.In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the

view that if any person who is or was a legal practitioner,

including a retired Hon’ble Judge is appointed as Inquiry

Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the

denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged

employee would be unfair.

31.For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that all the

Departmental inquiries conducted against the appellant were in

violation of rules of natural justice. This apart as the third

inquiry report is based on extraneous facts and first part of

the charge held to be proved in memorandum dated 26

March,

Page 38 2010 being not the part of the charges shown in the (third)

chargesheet, the order of punishment, including Resolution by

memorandum dated 26

March, 2010 cannot be upheld.

32.For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside both penal

memoranda dated 22

February, 2010 and 26

March, 2010. In

effect, the appellant stands reinstated to the post of

Professor but in the facts and circumstances, we allow only

50% of back wages (salary) to appellant for the intervening

period i.e. from the date of his disengagement till the date

of this judgment. However, the aforesaid period shall be

treated ‘on duty’ for all purposes including seniority,

increment, fixation of pay, retrial benefits, etc. The

respondents are directed to pay the appellant arrears within

two months, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest

@ 6% from the date of this judgment.

33.The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations and

directions. No costs.

………………………………………….J.

(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

………………………………………….J.

(C.NAGAPPAN)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 06, 2015.

Page 39 39

Reference cases

Description

Legal Notes

Add a Note....