The judgment emphasizes the need for fair proceedings in cases involving allegations by female students against a teacher and highlights the importance of maintaining the purity and academic atmosphere of the University.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Diwakar Raj Sharma, advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by smt, Sunita Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and Sri K. C. Sinha, learned Assistant. Solicitor General of India, on behalf of Union of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, Dr. Bhishambhar Dayal Gupta, was employed as Reader, Department of psychology in the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. The petitioner was placed under suspension under order of the Vice-Chancellor of the University in exercise of powers under statute 40 (3) (C) of the first Statutes of the University pending enquiry. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 17/18th September, 1986 and was required to submit his reply thereto, within ten days from the date of receipt of charges as levelled against him, which were ten in number. Sri Vashudevan, retired Comnissioner, Department of Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the University, The Enquiry Officer after conducting departmental proceedings submitted his enquiry report dated 11th March, 1989 running into as many as 87 pages along with the relevant record of the enquiry. The charges as levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved. The report submitted by the enquiry officer was considered by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 28/29th March, 1989 under item No, 48. The Executive Council accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in his report and resolved to issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate order of punishment be not passed. The aforesaid decision of the Executive Council was communicated to the petitioner by office memo dated 5th April, 1989 and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to have his say in the matter in respect of punishment proposed to be imposed upon him, The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice vide letter dated 12th May, 1989 and questioned the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The reply submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 16/17th May, 1989 and it was resolved that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, he be dismissed from service on the charges of gross misconduct including moral turpitude, as stood established against him after due enquiry. In compliance thereof, the formal order of punishment was issued by the University on 28th May, 1989.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Council referred to above, the petitioner made a detailed representation before the Visitor of the University under Section 36 of the aligarh Muslim University Act read with Statutes 36-A and B of the Statutes of the Aligarh muslim University Act. The Visitor, His Excellency the President of India, vide order dated 24th april, 1996 rejected the representation of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE decision of the Executive Council resulting in the order of punishment dated 16/17th may, 1989 as well as the decision of the Visitor dated 24th April, 1996 have been challenged by means of the present writ petition.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the decision of the Executive Council dated 16/17th May, 1989 as well as the decision of the Visitor dated 24th April, 2005 are not supported by sufficient reasons and, as such, are unsustainable in the eyes of law. In that regard, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, 1990 Crilj2148a, jt1990 (3)SC 630, (1990)4 SCC594, [1990 ]supp1 SCR44, 1991 (1)SLJ1 (SC), (1990)3 uplbec2093. It is further submitted that Executive Council in its resolution dated 16/17th may, 1989 had not recorded any finding of guilt on the charges levelled against the petitioner after considering the explanation fur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document