Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2547 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld Para 6 of the Annexure to Ordinance XI of University of Delhi and refused to interfere with the show cause notice issued on the Appellant and the memorandum(s) by which the Appellant was punished and removed from the service of the Delhi University. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The Appellant was a Professor in the University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, 'University'). According to the Appellant while serving in the University he wrote a letter dated 1st December, 1990 addressed to the Union Minister of State for Welfare requesting sanction of Rs. 5 crores for starting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research (hereinafter referred to as the, 'ACBR'). In response to the said letter, office of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centenary Celebration under Ministry of Welfare by letter dated 22nd January, 1991 invited the Appellant to submit a detailed project report for the establishment of ACBR commemorating birth centenary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. On 15th March, 1991, the University forwarded the proposal submitted by the Appellant for establishment of ACBR in the University and necessary certificate was given to the Government of India by the University, especially in respect of autonomy of the ACBR. The Central Government accepted the proposal and the Prime Minister laid down the foundation stone of ACBR. The Executive Council of the University vide Resolution dated 13th April, 1991 approved the project proposal for setting up ACBR and appointed a Committee to finalize the academic plan and ordinances. Ordinance XX of the University relates to Colleges and Institutions maintained by the University including ACBR. A Committee under the Chairmanship of Vice -Chancellor of the University in its meeting held on 4th November, 1991 recommended the Appellant's name to function as Director till a regular appointment is made. The Academic Council by its decision dated 20th December, 1991 approved the said recommendation and further recommended the Executive Council to appoint the Appellant as Director till a regular appointment is made. The Executive Council vide its Resolution No. 243(1) dated 15th February, 1992 accepted and approved the recommendations of the Academic Council. Pursuant to the said Resolution, the Assistant Registrar (E -NT) issued a letter dated 30th May, 1995 informing the Appellant about the decision of the Vice -Chancellor, appointing him as the Director of ACBR till a regular appointment is made to the said post. 1.1 The Appellant was already functioning as Professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi. He was Joint Proctor in the University between 1996 and 1999 and during this period he was a Visiting Scientist at the Rockefeller University, Cornell University -Medical College, Oxford University and several other Universities and institutes. The Appellant was also functioning as Chairman of Board of Research Studies, Faculty of Science and Chairman of Publication Advisory Committee, University of Delhi during the said period. 1.2 Further case of the Appellant is that he was appointed as Vice -Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in March, 1999 and the same was informed to Respondent No. 3 -Governing Body of ACBR. According to Appellant, the Governing Body resolved that the Appellant will continue as Director even after taking charge as the Vice -Chancellor in another University i.e. Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. On 30th July, 1999, the Chairman of the Governing Body, ACBR informed the Vice -Chancellor of the University about the said decision. 1.3 On 20th September, 1999, the Registrar of University notified that the Vice -Chancellor had appointed Professor Vani Brahmachari as Officiating Director, ACBR during the leave period of the Appellant and specified that the Appellant will continue to provide Academic Leadership to the ACBR. 1.4 On 6th October, 2000, Respondent No. 3 resolved that the Appellant should continue to provide help and guidance, though he was functioning as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University. However, it was specified that in absence of the Appellant, Dr. Vani Brahmachari will look after the day -to -day work of the office. Respondent No. 3 -Governing Body, ACBR vide its resolution No. 6 -74 dated 6th October, 2000 resolved to get the ACBR registered under Societies Act and then to approach the UGC and Government of India for declaring the ACBR as Institute of National importance. It was decided to prepare a draft and circulate to the members of the Governing Body to discuss the matter in the next meeting. 1.5 Further case of the Appellant is that Respondent No. 3 -Governing Body of ACBR vide its resolution dated 15th September, 2001 considered and approved the draft of Memorandum of Association of ACBR which was forwarded to the University for information and necessary action. 1.6 In February, 2005, a Search Committee for selection for the post of Vice -Chancellor in University was constituted. The Appellant as well as Respondent No. 2 -Professor Deepak Pental were candidates whose names were initially short listed by the Search Committee. In the meantime, the Appellant was removed from the post of Vice -Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh by order dated 16th July, 2005 fifteen days prior to the expiry of his tenure. 1.7 The aforesaid order of removal was challenged by the Appellant by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 51370 of 2005 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Prof. Deepak Pental was officiating as Pro -Vice -Chancellor, University of Delhi during that time. According to the Appellant, the said officiating Pro -Vice -Chancellor was not in the office on 18th July, 2005 and the said fact came to his knowledge when he contacted the officiating Vice -Chancellor to inform him about his removal from the Bundelkhand University. The Appellant also informed the same to the Head, Department of Chemistry; Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Delhi; Chairman, Governing Body, ACBR and Dy. Registrar, ACBR. Further, according to the Appellant, on the same day i.e. on 18th July, 2005, he gave his joining report to the University of Delhi but it was not accepted. The Appellant came to know the same from the Head of Chemistry Department who had received a letter from the Registrar, Delhi University regarding removal of the Appellant from Bundelkhand University and hence he was informed that his joining would be subject to the clearance from the Chancellor of Bundelkhand University. The Registrar, University of Delhi wrote letters to the Commissioner of Jhansi, who was acting Vice -Chancellor of Bundelkhand University Under Section 12(10) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the Principal Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi) and the Registrar, Bundelkhand University requesting them to supply information regarding curtailment of the tenure of the Appellant. The Principal Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University) replied to the letter on 26th July, 2005 giving details regarding removal of the Appellant from the post of Vice -Chancellor, Bundelkhand University. On 28th July, 2005, the Principal Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University) further informed the Registrar, University of Delhi that as per the directions of the High Court, the Appellant stood relieved from 16th July, 2005 and subsequently, the Appellant was also informed vide letter dated 8th August, 2005 that since he was relieved from 16th July, 2005 no further action was required from Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University. The Registrar, Bundelkhand University also replied to the Registrar, University of Delhi on 2nd August, 2005 informing him regarding allegation against the Appellant. The Secretary, UGC addressed a letter to Professor Deepak Pental on 4th August, 2005 informing him about removal of Appellant from Bundelkhand University with copy to the Chancellor for information and necessary action. On 4th August, 2005 a note was endorsed by Prof. Deepak Pental on the letter of UGC to the effect that "summary of the charges against Prof. Ramesh Chandra needs to be made". According to the Appellant, such note was given by Prof. Deepak Pental with a mala fide intention of involving Appellant in some controversy so that his name would be dropped from the list of the Search Committee as contender for the post of Vice -Chancellor, University of Delhi. The name of the Appellant was dropped and on 1st September, 2005, Prof. Deepak Pental was appointed as Vice -Chancellor of University of Delhi. 1.8 The Appellant has alleged mala fide against Dr. Deepak Pental and has taken plea that Prof. Pental did not stop harassing the Appellant even thereafter. He further alleged that after his removal from the Bundelkhand University, his joining to Delhi University was accepted w.e.f. 18th July, 2005. He also placed reliance on decision of Governing Body of ACBR wherein it was recorded that the Appellant would continue to function as Acting Director (Hony.), ACBR. The said resolution of the Governing Body was forwarded to the Vice -Chancellor of the University of Delhi. The Chairman of the Governing Body, ACBR wrote a letter on 23rd September, 2005 to the Vice -Chancellor of Delhi University regarding its stand on the position of the Appellant in ACBR. The Executive Council of the University of Delhi passed a resolution No. 132 on 17th October, 2005 that the Appellant will not be allowed to hold any administrative position in Delhi University henceforth and resolved to issue a show cause notice to the Appellant for (a) suppressing information with regard to allegation on account of which he was removed from the post of Vice -Chancellor University at the time of his premature return to Delhi University and (b) unauthorisedly assuming the office of the Director, ACBR, Delhi University for the period from 18 -7 -2005 to 24 -7 -2005 in contravention of the statutory provisions of the University. It was also resolved that the decision, if any, taken by or at the instance of the Appellant while unauthorisedly occupying the post of the Director, ACBR, or thereafter, be treated as null and void. 1.9 On 2nd November, 2005 a memorandum was issued to the Appellant containing the allegations set out in the Resolution dated 17th October, 2005 and calling upon the Appellant to submit his explanation. 1.10 The Appellant submitted his reply on 12th December, 2005 and requested for supply of certain documents. According to him, the documents were not supplied to him. 1.11 Further case of the Appellant is that the Governing Body of ACBR after considering all the communications from the Registrar, University of Delhi and the Executive Council Resolution No. 132 dated 17th October, 2005 reiterated its earlier decision authorizing the Appellant to act as Director of the ACBR and to take necessary decisions in that capacity until a regular appointment is made. The Governing Body of ACBR further authorized the Chairman and the Director to complete all formalities for converting it into an autonomous institution so that ACBR could be converted to a deemed University and an institution of national importance by the next academic session. 1.12 On 2nd January, 2006 the Registrar, University of Delhi issued an office order that consequent upon Dr. Vani Brahmachari proceeding on leave Dr. Daman Saluja would look after the day to day work of the office of Director, ACBR until further orders. On 25th January, 2006 the Registrar of the University forwarded another memorandum calling upon Appellant's explanation w.r.t. memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 within fifteen days. The Appellant submitted his final reply on 8th February, 2006. 1.13 It appears that the Appellant in the meantime moved an appeal before the Executive Council against Resolution dated 17th October, 2005 but no decision appears to have been taken. The Governing Body of ACBR continued with its efforts towards registration of the Centre as a Society. On 5th September, 2006, the Appellant was instructed by the Governing Body to file documents for the registration of the ACBR with the Registrar, Societies, Government of NCT, to file an approved affidavit stating that the ACBR is the legal allottee and is in possession of the property/premises of the old USIC Building Delhi University Campus, Delhi and ACBR have no objection if the registered office of the Society is situated in the said premises. 1.14 The Appellant earlier moved before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 16000 of 2006 challenging the Resolution of Executive Council dated 17th October, 2005. Allegation of bias was made against Prof. Deepak Pental therein. 1.15 On 21st March, 2007 Executive Council of the University passed a resolution to appoint a retired High Court Judge to hold an inquiry about allegation against the Appellant and pending the inquiry to suspend the Appellant. A memorandum dated 22nd March, 2007 was issued by the University placing the Appellant under suspension and debarring his entry in the premises of the University. 1.16 Justice 'X' - -a retired Judge of the High Court was appointed to inquire into the allegation against the Appellant and vide letter dated 23rd May, 2007 he informed the Appellant of his appointment and called him for the hearing on 4th June, 2007. The Appellant moved before the High Court by filing writ petition praying for stay of all further proceedings against him. 1.17 In the meantime, the High Court of Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated 11th June, 2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51370 of 2005 quashed the order dated 16th July, 2007 passed by the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi regarding the removal of the Appellant from the post of Vice -Chancellor and held that the removal order was contrary to the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 1.18 The aforesaid fact was intimated to the Vice -Chancellor of University of Delhi on 16th June, 2007 with a request to withdraw the resolutions and memorandum passed against the Appellant. 1.19 A fresh memorandum was issued by the University on 27th August, 2007 alleging that the Appellant has misused the telephones of the ACBR during the period 1999 -2005 though he was not functioning as Director during the said period. However, the Inquiry Officer recorded that in view of the discussions and reply submitted none of the charges were proved and the Appellant was absolved of the charges. 1.20 Another memorandum was issued by the University on 16th October, 2007 imputing charges of misconduct against the Appellant and the Appellant was asked to submit his written explanation to the said memorandum within fifteen days. 1.21 The writ petition being W.P.C. No. 16000 of 2006 preferred by the Appellant challenging the Resolution dated 17th October, 2005 was dismissed on 11th April, 2008. In the meantime, the Appellant was informed by Justice 'X' Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 5th May, 2008 that another inquiry was being initiated in respect of memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 and asked the Appellant to take part in the inquiry. In the meantime, the prayer of the Appellant for review of the order of suspension was also rejected. Therefore, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4436 of 2008 challenging the resolution dated 21st March, 2007 and memorandum dated 22nd March, 2007. The Appellant being aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.C. No. 16000 of 2006 preferred LPA No. 229 of 2008. The said LPA No. 229 of 2008 was heard along with Writ Petition No. 4436 of 2008 and both were dismissed by the High Court by common judgment dated 21st May, 2009. 1.22 The Appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing the Special Leave Petition Nos. 13753 and 14150 of 2009 before this Court. In the said case the Appellant alleged bias against the Vice -Chancellor Prof. Deepak Pental in the matter of issuance of the charge -sheet. This Court initially vide order dated 18th September, 2009 directed the Respondent to conclude the inquiry against the Appellant within two months. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry pursuant to Memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 and submitted his report on 21st October, 2009. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the Appellant. According to the Appellant, Inquiry Officer neither allowed oral evidences nor supplied relevant documents sought by him. The Appellant submitted his reply to me said report on 28th January, 2010. 1.23 On 19th December, 2009 the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry pursuant to memorandum dated 27th August, 2007 and 16th October, 2007 and submitted his reports, both dated 23rd February, 2010. A copy of the inquiry report pursuant to memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 was forwarded to the Appellant asking him to submit his reply within twenty one days. The Appellant requested the Registrar, University of Delhi to supply certain documents which were referred to by the Inquiry Officer and submitted interim reply on 18th March, 2010. Subsequently, the Executive Council passed Resolution No. 281 dated 25th March, 2010 disengaging the Appellant from the services with immediate effect and subsequently a memorandum dated 26th March, 2010 was issued to the said effect. The aforesaid decision was communicated to the Appellant by the Registrar. 1.24 This Court on 5th April, 2010 dismissed the SLP(C) Nos. 13753 of 2009 and 14150 of 2009 filed by the Appellant challenging the High Court order dated 21st May, 2009 in LPA No. 229 of 2008 but granted the liberty to the Appellant to challenge the punitive orders. The Appellant was permitted to take all the pleas taken in the SLP including the challenge to the validity and propriety of the inquiry proceedings conducted by the University of Delhi. Pursuant to the said order, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2010 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which was dismissed by impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there was illegality and unfairness in the initiation and conduct of inquiry in regard to the allegations which led to the removal of Appellant. It was also submitted that the Chancellor (Bundelkhand University) has not written to Delhi University suggesting action to be taken against the Appellant. Despite the same, information regarding contents of charges was solicited unilaterally by the Registrar of Delhi University based on newspaper reports and the communication dated 4th August, 2005 sent by the UGC to the Vice -Chancellor of University. Learned Counsel further contended that in the absence of Chancellor, Bundelkhand University suggesting action against the Appellant, the UGC need not have, even sent the above communication. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted as it was always open to the competent authority to initiate departmental proceeding against its employee, with regard to any misconduct or dereliction of duty if found during performance of duty while posted in the office or on deputation. In the present case, it was well within the jurisdiction of the university to initiate such a departmental inquiry when it is noticed that its employee was prematurely removed from an office to which he was deputed to on account of certain charges against him. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that none of the memoranda relating to disciplinary action were ever placed before the Executive Council, therefore, memoranda cannot be said to be charges or allegations considered or approved by the Executive Council (Disciplinary Authority). The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of the stand taken by the University and the material on record. The counsel for the Respondents was directed to produce the original record relating to all the proceedings/memoranda, all articles of charges including the office note and inquiry report. However, only the record relating to memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 has been provided. We have perused the original record produced by the Respondents and find no illegality in the manner of initiation of departmental proceeding as the same was initiated as per Executive Council Resolution No. 188 dated 21st March, 2007.
(3.) IT was further submitted that the Appellant could not file the proper reply to all the three memoranda due to non supply of documents sought by him towards submitting an effective reply. However, such submission cannot be accepted in absence of specific pleading as to which were the documents sought for but not supplied by the Respondents and how they were connected with the charges levelled against the Appellant.;