Gajendra Singh vs Doon University Dehradun & Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Subhang Dobhal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner, currently employed with the respondent-University, was appointed as an Associate Professor by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The minimum years of experience remained to be promoted, to the post of Associate Professor, is eight years teaching experience. The petitioner claims to have nearly 13 years experience in teaching. Based on a complaint made by an individual, against whom the petitioner had earlier made a complaint, the respondent-University appears to have constituted a Committee which, after enquiry from the other University had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was short of minimum required teaching experience of eight years. The said enquiry report appears to have been placed before the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 12.01.2019; and the Executive Council appears to have resolved to accept the enquiry report, to call upon the petitioner to show cause thereagainst, and for the Vice Chancellor to give a personnel hearing, and if he considered necessary to put up the matter to the Executive Council.

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the Executive Council had already pre-judged the issue; the very fact that they had accepted the enquiry report would show that they had already made up their mind; no useful purpose would be served in the petitioner submitting a reply thereto; the disciplinary action, sought to be taken against the petitioner required a charge-sheet to be issued, an enquiry to be conducted wherein evidence is adduced on behalf of the University, and the sentence is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, besides adducing evidence in his defence; the Executive Council which is required to take a decision, has erred in calling upon the petitioner to appear for oral hearing before the Vice Chancellor; an oral hearing should be given by the authority which would imposes the punishment, and not by the another; and, in any event since a duly constituted Selection Committee has found the petitioner eligible for appointment, the Executive Council cannot sit in judgment over the decision of such a Selection Committee.

On the other hand, Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent-University would submit that the writ petition as filed is premature; all that the Executive Council has done is to forward a copy of the enable the petitioner to submit his objections thereto; the petitioner's interests are adequately safeguarded by an oral hearing being given to him by the Vice Chancellor; it is only after an order is passed, can the petitioner then invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, if he aggrieved thereby.

As evident from the impugned proceedings itself, the Executive Council has merely accepted the enquiry report and has forwarded a copy thereof, to the petitioner, to enable him to file his objections thereto. When an enquiry report is placed before the competent authority, it is always open to it to either accept or reject the finding recorded in said report and, if it were to reject the enquiry report, then no further action is required to be taken. If, on the other hand, it accepts the enquiry report it is then required to give the delinquent employee an opportunity of being heard and to consider the objections raised by him before taking a final decision in the matter. Acceptance of the inquiry by the disciplinary authority is merely tentative not final, for it is always open to the disciplinary authority after considering the objections raised thereto by the petitioner, to take a different view; and decide not to proceed with the matter in case it is satisfied that the objections raised by the petitioner are legal and valid.

We are in agreement with the submission of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel, that any disciplinary action must be proceeded by a charge sheet, and in the case of major penalty proceedings, for a departmental enquiry to be conducted, for evidence to be adduced in presence of the delinquent employee. These are all issues which the petitioner can always raise in his objections to the enquiry report. While we also find force in the submission if the learned Senior Counsel, that it is only the authority, which has the power to imposed the punishment, which is required to give an oral hearing to the delinquent employee and not another, this again is something which the petitioner can bring to the notice of the Executive Council, of the University, in his objections to the enquiry report.

While objections have already been filed in reply to the enquiry report, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel, would request two more weeks' time for additional objections to be filed to the said enquiry report. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file additional objections, to the enquiry report within two weeks from today. In case any such objections are filed, the Executive Council shall consider both the original reply, and the subsequent objections, filed by the petitioner, deal with all the contention raised by him therein, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, and communicate the same to the petitioner.

Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent is present in Court and undertakes to inform the Executive Council of the order passed by this Court.

The writ petition stands dispose of accordingly.

No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of prescribed charges, by 27.07.2019.