The court emphasized the importance of affording an opportunity of hearing and conducting a departmental inquiry before imposing penalties on employees, in compliance with statutory provisions and constitutional principles.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been moved by the Petitioner seeking following reliefs :

“I. That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record in respect of the case of the petitioner from the respondent University.

II. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) against the respondent’s authority by declaring the impugned order/notification dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure-P/1) is bad in the eyes of law and the same is not sustainable under the law, thus the petitioner is entitle for reinstatement along with all the consequent service benefit.

III. To kindly inflict exemplary cost of Rupees 50 lacs on the respondents for torturing, causing mental torment and exploiting the petitioner and violating fundamental and human rights of the petitioner.

IV. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ’s/order’s/direction’s/relief’s, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts of the case, as per the pleadings of the writ petition, are that in the year 2007, the Respondent/University published an advertisement for direct recruitment on the regular posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in different subjects. The Petitioner also participated and was selected to the post of Associate Professor (Reader) in the subject of Journalism-University vide order dated 19.9.2008 (Annexure P2). Prior to this appointment, in the year 2005-06, the Petitioner was appointed as a Reader on contract basis in the Respondent/University and Respondent 4 Shailendra Khandelwal was also appointed as a Lecturer on contract basis for a period of one year. However, on the basis of some statement made by the Petitioner the contractual period of Respondent 4 Shailendra Khandelwal was not extended. Due to this, he adopted enmity and revengeful attitude against the Petitioner. Respondent 4 Shailendra Khandelwal preferred a petition, being Writ Petition (S) No.5286 of 2009 before this Court and also filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog as well as before the Chancellor of the Respondent/University against the recommendation of the selection committee upon which the Chancellor constituted a committee. The then Secretary of the General Administration Department, namely, Ms. Nidhi Chhibber inquired into the matter and submitted her report on 9.8.2010 (Annexure P4) (henceforth ‘the NC Report’). The Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog also inquired into the matter and submitted its recommendation on 12.8.2014 (Annexure P5). Neither the NC Report nor the report of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog made any recommendation against the appointment of the Petitioner. Meanwhile, in the year 2020, Respondent 3 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent/University. The appointment of Respondent 3 has been challenged by the Petitioner on various grounds before this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.1234 of 2023, which is still pending. During pendency of Writ Petition (S) No.1234 of 2023, a meeting of the Executive Council of the Respondent/University was held on 15.6.2023 and without following the due process of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, a resolution has been passed by the Executive Council of the Respondent/University for termination of services of the Petitioner. Writ Petition (S) No.3760 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the resolution dated 15.6.2023 in which on 21.6.2023 notices have been issued by this Court. Just one day prior to 21.6.2023, i.e., on 20.6.2023, a show cause notice (Annexure P12) has been issued by the Registrar of the Respondent/University to the Petitioner. Vide letter dated 26.6.2023, the Petitioner demanded copies of the relevant documents, but, the Registrar refused him to supply copies of those documents and directed him to submit response of the show cause notice. Under these panic circumstances, the Petitioner submitted his response and without placin