IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a disciplinary authority, such as the Executive Council, exercises quasi-judicial function and lacks the authority to review its own decision on the nature of the penalty imposed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Upadhya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the Respondent-University.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is confining his writ petition only to the resolution adopted by the Executive Council dated 27.09.2019 and the consequential order of Registrar dated 21.10.2019.

3. Petitioner while working as a professor in the Department of Zoology Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University was awarded with the punishment in the nature of compulsory retirement from service vide resolution adopted by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 27.09.2019 (Item No.19) and the consequential order passed by Registrar of the University dated 21.10.2019. It is this resolution of the Executive Council and the consequential order passed by the Registrar that are put to challenge before this Court in the present petition on the ground that the Executive Council being the disciplinary authority under Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 and the statute framed thereunder exercises a quasi judicial power and, therefore, in the absence of any provision of law permitting it to review its decision, such review was bad for want of lawful authority. Learned Senior Advocate has also placed a judgment of this Court in the case of Gajadhar Prasad Mishra vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad and others: 1966 All LJ 324 (FB):1965 SCC Online All 345.

4. Yet another argument has been advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that even on the principle of fraud and misrepresentation as twin factors to entitle an authority to review its decision, were also not available with the respondents so as to charge the delinquent employee with fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining such an order which has been reviewed. Learned Advocate has also relied upon two authorities of Supreme Court in the case of Neelima Mishra vs. Harindar Kaur Paintal: 1990 (2) SCC 746 and Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others: 2009 (2) SCC 570.

5. Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the University has sought to urge before the Court that matter is of such gravity involving misconduct on the part of the delinquent employee that this Court may not like to exercise its discretion in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the order of punishment of compulsory retirement. He has further urged that in the matter of imposition of penalty in the nature of compulsory retirement more especially when the petitioner has already attained the age of 58 years, would not go on to result in any irreparable loss or injury so as to lead to any miscarriage of justice. He has also argued that continuance of such teachers in faculty is against the interest of students community especially where a large number of female students are there and even otherwise it will not be conducive to the academic environment on the campus of the University to continue such an employee any further. He submits that the punishment of compulsory retirement is factored for various reasons not necessarily a punishment but in the nature of an action which discourages such conduct on the part of the faculty and non faculty members of the University from showing this kind of conduct. In respect of his argument, learned Senior advocate, Mr. Upadhya has placed reliance on authority of Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra: (1999) 1 SCC 759.

6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint by students regarding his alleged misconduct in making vague remarks upon the students that escalated to the degrading and in the nature of undignified comments termed as vulgar in nature that taking recourse to the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (