Back
RPNLU Registrar Faces Show Cause for and
Prayagraj, – In a sweeping disciplinary action, the Vice-Chancellor of , Prayagraj, has issued a to Registrar Varun Kumar Pandey, alleging a cascade of failures ranging from to and . The notice, citing provisions of the , gives Pandey until 4 PM on to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.
A Cascade of Allegations
The six-charge notice paints a picture of an officer who, according to the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Usha Tandon, repeatedly placed his own judgment above statutory obligations and lawful directions. The most serious charge relates to Pandey’s handling of an order passed by the in —a case where students alleged by Dr. Deepak Sharma, then Head of Department and Warden of the Boys’ Hostel.
The High Court Order and Its Aftermath
On , Justice Vinod Diwakar directed that Dr. Sharma be “” and barred him from any role in the students’ academic or hostel matters. The order also mandated the constitution of . A soft copy was emailed to both the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar on September 19 at 8:24 PM.
According to the notice, Pandey failed to apprise the Vice-Chancellor of this order. When the VC learned of it separately and issued a specific written direction on to immediately communicate the relief to Dr. Sharma, Pandey did not comply. “Your omission could have resulted in non-compliance inviting stern action against the undersigned and disrepute to the University,” the notice states.
Refusal to Assume Charge as Hostel Warden
Following Dr. Sharma’s removal, the VC assigned Pandey the additional responsibility of Warden of the Boys’ Hostel on . Pandey declined, citing family reasons and proposing an alternative arrangement. He also sought guidance from the Principal Secretary (Judicial) and Legal Advisor, , arguing that compliance should be deferred pending such guidance.
The VC rejected this stance, clarifying that . Despite repeated directives, Pandey did not assume charge. Instead, the notice alleges, he independently directed the Associate Warden to handle hostel matters and even ordered him to remain on night duty—actions the VC described as “.”
Interference with Legal Counsel
Another charge concerns Pandey’s alleged interference with the University’s legal representation. , engaged by RPNLU to represent it in the same High Court case, complained that Pandey telephoned him on and 24, questioning his authority to appear and instructing him to refrain from representing the University. The VC noted that such conduct could create “uncertainty and ambiguity regarding the authority of the University’s counsel” and was .
Failure to Act on Examination Data Loss
On , Controller of Examinations Dr. Sonika reported the loss of a pen drive containing confidential examination data from the . The VC directed Pandey on to look into the matter on priority. The notice alleges that Pandey took no effective steps to preserve CCTV footage or identify persons who had access to the cell. “CCTV footage is time-sensitive and may be overwritten in the ordinary course, still no steps were taken to preserve or retrieve the same,” the notice observes.
Defying the
The most administratively significant charge concerns Pandey’s failure to issue appointment letters to 12 assistant professors whose selection was approved by the on , by a 4-2 majority. Pandey, who served as Secretary of the Council, was present when the resolution was passed. The VC directed him to issue the letters immediately, but he did not. The notice states that Pandey also raised objections to the reconstitution of the University’s , citing alleged writ petitions challenging recruitments—petitions that, according to the notice, did not exist.
Statutory Obligations and Consequences
The notice repeatedly invokes , which require the Registrar to “comply with all directions and orders of the and the Vice-Chancellor” and to be “.” It also references , alleging .
“The aforesaid acts and omissions, viewed cumulatively, have resulted in and have adversely affected the proper administration and functioning of the University,” the notice concludes.
The notice warns that if Pandey fails to submit his written explanation by the deadline, it will be presumed he has no explanation to offer and the matter will be decided based on available material. The Vice-Chancellor has appended 17 annexures, including email exchanges and the High Court order, to support the charges.
