The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that failure to provide necessary documents and cross-examination opportunities invalidates the inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition and as counsel for the respondent Committee of Management in connected Writ Petition being Writ (A) No. 18909 of 2023 as well and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the University in both the matters and Dr. Sudha Garg, who has personally appeared being respondent no. 3 in present petition and being petitioner in connected Writ Petition being Writ (A) No. 18909 of 2023.

2. Writ (A) No. 20031 of 2023 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Hindu College Morabadabd whereas Writ Petition No. 18909 of 2023 has been filed by Dr. Garg, Associate Professor and Head of Departmental of Zoology at Hindu College Moradabad.

3. Dr. Garg is a caveator in Writ (A) No. 20031 of 2023 and pleadings have been exchanged between the contesting parties including University. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order of Vice Chancellor dated 4.10.2023, and therefore, are being heard and decided together taking writ petition 20031 of 2023 as a leading petition.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Dr. Garg, namely third respondent was placed under suspension by the Committee of Management of the institution vide order dated 18.2.2019 and the same day she was served with a charge-sheet containing as many as eight charges. Dr. Garg right from the beginning has been questioning the authority of the Committee of Management to hold enquiry against her not only for the reason that charges were ill founded but also that Committee of Management was not entitled to hold any enquiry for she being appointed upon recommendation of Director of Higher Education. According to her, therefore, any enquiry could have been conducted only at the instance of State Government through Director of Higher Education. Dr. Garg submitted her reply to the charge sheet on 10.4.2019 denying all eight charges, but the enquiry committee after holding enquiry into the charges, returned findings to the effect that all the charges against Dr. Garg stood proved vide its report dated 30th July,2019. Dr. Garg was served with a show cause notice alongwith enquiry report on 3rd August, 2019 to which she submitted her reply on 14th August, 2019. The Committee of Management after having deliberations upon reply submitted by Dr. Garg found it appropriate to inflict upon her major penalty of dismissal/termination from service by adopting resolution to this effect on 27th August, 2019, the same stood forwarded to the Vice Chancellor Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University for its approval. The Vice Chancellor passed an order dated 25th August, 2022, which came to be challenged before this Court by Committee of Management as well as Dr. Garg vide Writ (A) No. 14616 of 2022 and 19389 of 2022 respectively. The order was set aside by this Court under its detailed judgment and order dated 17th July, 2023 and directions got issued to the Vice Chancellor to take decision afresh after giving personal hearing to the parties on a fixed date i.e. 11.8.2023. Dr. Garg was also directed to be paid subsistence allowance since her status as was during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, was maintained as such and joining and payment of regular salary was held to be subject to the fresh decision by Committee of Management and the Vice Chancellor. Dr. Garg claimed to have appeared before Vice Chancellor with detailed reply afresh filed by her before Vice Chancellor on 5.8.2023. The Vice Chancellor proceeded to hear the matter on merits afresh and after hearing rival parties a passed final order on 4.10.2023 holding that Dr. Garg having not been found guilty of any of charges, approval could not be granted to the termination of her service as proposed by the Committee of Management and since determination of point nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been made in her favour, Dr. Garg was held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. It is this above ord