Anwar Alam vs Jamia Milia Islamia and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The history of this case shows that petitioner is consistently over anxious to come to the Court even before proceedings achieve finality. This I am saying so because there is yet no report of the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty or imposing any penalty upon the petitioner. It is trite that the Enquiry Officer''s report may or may not be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the petitioner can be exonerated or the petitioner can be held to be guilty. Today, there is no finality to the proceedings against the petitioner in that there is as yet no order of the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges as proved against the petitioner. The issue pertains to the petitioner/charged officer fraudulently manipulating of holding of an "examination" of paper MP 1.2 (Government and Politics in West Asia) of the first semester of the M. Phil course of the Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia with regard to one Ms. Versha Tomar. There is also a charge against the petitioner of wrongly seeking to influence and pressurize the faculty members of the Centre for West Asian Studies with respect to the case of Ms. Versha Tomar.

The present petitioner after issuing of the charge sheet had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5254/2012 seeking to challenge Statute 37 of Jamia Milia Islamia under the caption (Removal of Teachers). It was urged by the petitioner that the Statute in question empowers Jamia Milia Islamia to remove a teacher etc on the grounds of misconduct, which would mean, when even, if a misconduct is minor the only penalty envisaged would be that of removal from removal from service irrespective of the type of infraction. This challenge was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.9.2012. It may be noted that the Division Bench, after dismissing the challenge laid to Statute 37 of Jamia Milia Islamia Act, 1988, listed the matter before the learned Single Judge on 10.9.2012. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 10.9.2012 by making the following observations in paras 5 and 6 of the order dated 10.9.2012, which read as under:-

I note, it is stated in the petition that the orders of initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has been obtained without any application of mind by the E.C. In the absence of relevant documents before the EC, it cannot be said that EC applied its mind in giving concurrence to the decision of the respondent to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

I here make it clear that this Court has not given any opinion on this issue and the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this issue at the appropriate state if he is aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority.

The Enquiry Officer Sh. B.L. Garg (Additional District & Session Judge (Retd.) thereafter commenced the proceedings with respect to the charge sheet and has now given his report dated 12.1.2013. The Enquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of both the charges.

The petitioner, at this stage, has rushed to the Court claiming that the Enquiry Officer ought to have allowed the petitioner to lead expert evidence in the form of hand writing expert''s report.

Counsel for the respondent no. 1/University has argued before me that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of Memorandum dated 24.1.2013, which has been issued by the University to the petitioner after the report was given by the Enquiry Officer, and in which Memorandum the petitioner has been given an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. I may only state that in the entire writ petition record this communication dated 24.1.2013 of asking the petitioner to show cause against the findings of Enquiry Officer is not filed.

I really have failed to understand the need of the petitioner to repeatedly rush to this Court at a premature stage. As already observed above, the report of the Enquiry Officer may or may not be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. It is only the order of the Disciplinary Authority which will be binding against the University or the petitioner i.e. the finality will only be reached at the stage if the Disciplinary Authority accepts the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is perfectly possible that the Disciplinary Authority may not accept the report of the Enquiry Officer. Also, all arguments which are urged before me or averred in the writ petition, are in fact arguments which are to be addressed before the Disciplinary Authority, and not to this Court. It cannot be disputed that all the grounds which are urged in the writ petition would be available to the petitioner i.e. before the Disciplinary Authority, before the Disciplinary Authority agrees or does not agree to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer.

In my opinion, para 6 of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.9.2012 cannot come to the aid of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to come to this Court at a stage where yet there is no finality as to the petitioner being guilty or not and as to any penalty being imposed upon the petitioner or not or as to any other disciplinary action being taken against the petitioner or not. In view of the aforesaid acts, including the aspect of there yet not being finality to the report of the Enquiry Officer because there is no Disciplinary Authority''s order, concealment of the petitioner of the Memorandum dated 24.1.2013, and finally the fact that all the arguments which are sought to be urged before me are in fact arguments to be urged before the Disciplinary Authority, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.