The failure to issue a disagreement note when the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer's findings constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating remittance for proper procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.-Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Sri V.K. Singh, learnd Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and Sri Rahul Agarwal for Respondent No. 3.

2. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the writ petition is that the second respondent, Gautam Budh University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar is a University established under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gautam Budh University Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-University), in exercise of the powers purported to be under Section 24 of the U.P. Act No. 9 of 2002, the Gautam Budh University has enacted the statute by the name of Uttar Pradesh Gautam Budh University First Statute, 2007.

4. The respondent-University in order to fill up the post of Personal Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor conducted selections pursuant whereto the writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as Personal Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor on contractual basis for a period of two years by virtue of the order dated 8.7.2010 in Pay-Band-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 with starting basic salary of Rs. 18150 plus allowances. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that as per the qualification and the experience so set out by the respondent-University pursuant to the meeting held on 27.4.2008 under the Chairmanship of Vice-Chancellor, the Academic Qualifications for the post of Personal Secretary to Vice-Chancellor was Graduation (desirable Post-Graduation with two years relevant experience). The writ petitioner, post issuance of the appointment order dated 8.7.2010 was accorded joining. Thereafter his services were regularized on the post of Personal Secretary to the Vice Chancellor by order dated 13.4.2018.

5. The next post for which the writ petitioner claims to be entitled for promotion was the post of Staff Officer to the Vice-Chancellor.

6. As per the qualifications provided under the relevant Rules as set out in the meeting held on 27.4.2008 under the Chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor, an applicant had to possess Graduation (Desirable Post-Graduation) with 8 years of working experience in Administrative/Academic/Account of Government Department or University/Educational/Research Institute/Society. Further according to the writ petitioner, as asserted in the paragraph-22 of the writ petition, there was a change in the academic qualification, as for the post of Staff Officer to the Vice-Chancellor (Group-A) Pay-Scale 15600-39100 G.P. 5400, the mode of recruitment was Direct Recruitment/Deputation/Promotion and the Promotional eligibility was Graduation with five years of continuous service in Gautam Budh University in G.P. 4800 and good work record. According to the writ petitioner, he had an unblemished service record and an impeachable reputation. As from the year 2010-2011 to 2012-13 and 2014-15 to 2016-17, he had been assessed as outstanding and the integrity was certified. However for the year 2013-14, the assessment was though certified as whereas for the year 2017-18, assessment was outstanding integrity was certified beyond doubt. It is further claimed that while the writ petitioner was working as the Staff Officer to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, he received a suspension order dated 18.8.2020, whereby he was placed under suspension on the basis of the complaint/legal notice made/sent by one of the local advocates practicing in District Court, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar upon instructions of Vishnu Pratap Singh. It is also the allegation of t