The court ruled that termination based on unsupported accusations, along with procedural unfairness and malice, constitutes a violation of the employee's rights, emphasizing the necessity for fair disciplinary processes.

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging an order dated 14.12.2024 passed by the Registrar, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby her services from the post of Private Secretary, have been terminated.

2. Facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Private Secretary,[PS (Wrongly mentioned as ‘Personal Secretary in the writ petition’, though it should be ‘Private Secretary’ as mentioned in Rule 4(b) of the Regulations For Non-Teaching Staff of Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida)] [AFR] to Vice Chancellor, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, [The University The eligibility for promotion to the post of Staff Officer is ‘Graduation’, five years of continuous service in Gautam Buddha University in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 and good record of work.] on contractual basis on 08.07.2010. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was fully eligible for the post of PS as she was having M.Phil, M.Ed. and M.A. Degrees along with four years of experience. Her services were regularized by an order of the Vice Chancellor dated 13.04.2018. Later, the petitioner being eligible for promotion, was promoted vide order dated 18.09.2018 as Staff Officer to Vice Chancellor.

3. The petitioner has been discharging her duties with utmost sincerity and devotion. She carried an impeccable reputation in the University. During her service period from 2010 to 2017, out of eight years, in seven she was awarded ‘outstanding’ remark in her annual assessment record and for one year as ‘good’.

4. On 18.08.2020, the petitioner was suspended mentioning about a legal notice of one Vishnu Pratap Singh moved through Amit Kumar Agarwal, Advocate, alleging irregularities in her appointment as Private Secretary and promotion as Staff Officer. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7156 of 2020, Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others . Initially, the Court directed the University to file a counter affidavit and no interim order was granted. Finally, writ petition came to be disposed of with certain directions, on 21.09.2022.

5. Meanwhile, Sri S.N. Tiwari, the then Officiating Registrar, lodged a first information report against the petitioner through an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., bearing Case Crime No. 166 of 2020, under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16275 of 2020, Meena Singh v. Stae of U.P. & 2 Others order, which was dismissed as not-pressed on 05.01.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4389 of 2021, which was allowed by order dated 06.04.2021. The matter was investigated and ultimately a final report was submitted in the said case, on 09.07.2021.

6. In terms of the suspension order, an enquiry committee comprising three faculty members, was constituted by an order dated 21.08.2020. Said was appended with ‘terms of reference’ which mentioned five articles on the basis of charges levelled against the petitioner.

7. On 27.10.2020, the Vice Chancellor substituted the enquiry committee by appointing a single-member enquiry committee, who again served a new charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The petitioner made a request to the Presenting Officer through an e-mai