2015 Supreme(SC) 95

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, C.NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Professor Ramesh Chandra – Appellant
Vs.
University of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8224 of 2012
Decided on : 06-02-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
It is always open to competent authority to initiate departmental proceeding against its employee with regard to any misconduct or dereliction of duty.
Allegation of mala fide cannot be raised in absence of specific evidence.
Distinction between dereliction of duty and misconduct.
No list of witnesses or documentary evidence supplied to appellant or Inquiry Officer – Non-supply of documents requested by appellant, list of witnesses or documentary evidence vitiates the enquiry.
Enquiry holding delinquent guilty of charges on extraneous grounds would be vitiated.
Action of the University punishing the delinquent because of Clash of interest between the officials of the University and the ACBR held to be mala fide and illegal.
Retired Judge who had been counsel of the University should not be appointed as Inquiry Officer. Such appointment would be open to be challenged on ground of bias.
If the Inquiry Officer is a legal practitioner, including a retired judge it will be unfair to deny legal representation to the delinquent.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Misconduct and departmental proceedings – It is always open to competent authority to initiate departmental proceeding against its employee, with regard to any misconduct or dereliction of duty. (Para 3)

       (b) Administration of Justice – Allegation of mala fide – Cannot be raised in absence of specific evidence. (Para 7)

       (c) Service law – Misconduct – Appellant failing to inform Delhi University about his removal from the post of Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand University before completion of tenure – Such failure may be dereliction of duty, but not misconduct. (Para 15)

       (d) Service law – Misconduct – Appellant was the First Director of ACBR – Showing himself in his letter head as ‘Founder Director of ACBR’ – Not against code of conduct – Not a misconduct. (Para 16)

       (e) Service law – Punishment – No provision in University statute for permanently withholding appointment – Debarring appellant permanently from being appointed as Vice chancellor on ground of acts of misconduct which cannot be termed misconduct – Not tenable – Punishment, held, illegal. (Para 17)

       (f) Service law – Departmental Enquiry – Charge sheet – No list of witnesses or documentary evidence supplied to appellant or Inquiry Officer – Documents requested by appellant not supplied – Enquiry vitiated. (Para 20)

       (g) Service law – Departmental enquiry – Inquiry report mentioning background of appointment of the appellant since 1992 though it had no connection with charges, that too without anything on record – Similarly, allegations levelled in memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005, though not part of charge sheet, considered by Inquiry Officer – Inquiry report holding appellant guilty – Held vitiated. (Para 21)

       (h) Service law – Departmental Enquiry – Mala fide – Appellant being Director of ACBR, acting in terms of decision of Governing Body of ACBR, taking steps towards making the ACBR autonomous – Not liked by officials of University – Clash of interest between the officials of the University and the ACBR – Resulting in Memorandum of punishment of appellant – Action of the University held to be mala fide and illegal. (Para 22)

       (i) Service law – Inquiry Officer – Appointment of – Retired Judge, if had been counsel of the University – Should not be appointed as Inquiry Officer – Open to be challenged on ground of bias. (Para 26)

       (j) Service law – Departmental enquiry – Representation by legal practitioner – Inquiry Officer a legal practitioner, including a retired judge – Delinquent requesting assistance of legal practitioner – Denial unfair. (Para 30)

       (1983) 1 SCC 124; (1991) 2 SCC 283 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was a Professor in the University of Delhi.

       On 15th March, 1991, the University forwarded the proposal submitted by the appellant for establishment of ACBR in the University along with necessary certificate especially in respect of autonomy of the ACBR.

       The Executive Council of the University vide Resolution dated 13th April, 1991 approved the project proposal for setting up ACBR and appointed a Committee to finalize the academic plan and ordinances.

       The Assistant Registrar (E-NT) informed 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.

       The appellant was appointed as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in March, 1999 and the same was informed to respondent no.3-Governing Body of ACBR. The Governing Body resolved that the appellant will continue as Director even after taking charge as the Vice Chancellor in Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. Professor Vani Brahmachari was apointed as Officiating Director, ACBR during the leave period of the appellant specifying that the appellant will continue to provide Academic Leadership to the ACBR.

       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, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh by order dated 16th July, 2005 fifteen days prior to the expiry of his tenure.

       The aforesaid order of removal was challenged by the appellant by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition. Prof. Deepak Pental was officiating as Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi during that time.

       On 18th July, 2005, the appellant gave his joining report to the University of Delhi but it was not accepted.

       The name of the appellant was dropped and on 1st September, 2005, Prof. Deepak Pental was appointed as Vice Chancellor of University of Delhi.

       The Executive Council of the University of Delhi passed a resolution no.132 on 17th 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 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.

       On 25th January, 2006 the Registrar of the University forwarded another memorandum calling upon appellant's explanation w.r.t. memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 within fifteen days. The appellant submitted his final reply on 8th February, 2006.

       The appellant earlier moved before the High Court in Writ Petition No.16000 of 2006 challenging the Resolution of Executive Council dated 17th October, 2005. Allegation of bias was made against Prof. Deepak Pental therein.

       The appellant moved before the High Court by filing writ petition praying for stay of all further proceedings against him.

       In the meantime, the High Court of Allahabad quashed the order dated 16th 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.

       The aforesaid fact was intimated to the Vice Chancellor of University of Delhi on 16th June, 2007 with a request to withdraw the resolutions and memorandum passed against the appellant.

       Another memorandum was issued by the University on 16th October, 2007 imputing charges of misconduct against the appellant.

       The writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the Resolution dated 17th October, 205 was dismissed on 11th April, 2008.

       The appellant filed Writ Petition No.4436 of 2008 challenging the resolution dated 21st March, 2007 and memorandum dated 22nd 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 21st May, 2009.

       The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing the Special Leave Petition which was dismissed but appellant was granted the liberty to challenge the punitive orders.

       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 1st March, 2012.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       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.

       Result: Appeal allowed.