- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner, who is Reader in the Department of Basic Principles, institute of Medical Sciences, Benaras Hindu University, Varansi (hereinafter referred to as the University), took L. T. C. advance of Rs. 14,190 in March, 1988. On June 2, 1988 he submitted his L. T. C. bill for Rs. 13,868. 50. In that bill the names of his mother and daughter were also mentioned, although they have not travelled with him. Two days after submission of the said bill, petitioner on 4-6-1988 moved an application for its correction, by deleting the names of his mother and daughter therefrom. The bill was however, not ' permitted to be corrected and a charge sheet dated 24/26-9-1988 containing the allegations of submitting the false. L. T. C bill, was served on the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his explanation stating therein that by mistake the names of his mother and daughter were mentioned in the L. T. C. bill submitted by him on 2-6-1988, but when he realised the mistake after two days he moved an application on 4-6-1988 for deleting their names from the bill. Vice-Chancellor by order dated 4-1-1989 rejected his explanation and imposed the following punishments on the petitioner : (a) Cancellation of L. T. C. bill for Rs. 13,868,50 and realisation of the L. T. C. advance of Rs. 14,190 with 9-1/2 percent interest ; (b) Cancellation of L. T. C. for the next two Block ; and (c) Stoppage of future increments for five years. Petitioner applied for review of the order of the Vice-Chancellor, but it was rejected on 10/11-3-1989. Thereafter he filed an appeal against the above order before the Executive Council of the University. As no order was passed by the Executive Council in his appeal petitioner filed writ petition No. 21478 of 1989, which was allowed holding that against the order of the Vice-Chancellor statutory appeal lies before the Executive Council of the University and the Vice-Chancellor was not justified to with hold the appeal. Direction was accordingly issued to the Vice-Chancellor to forward the petitioner's appeal to the Executive Council for decision by the latter in accordance with law. After the above decision of this Court the petitioner also moved an application for amendment of his appeal. The Executive Council on 4/5-8- 1990 dismissed the appeal, which Was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 6/9-10-199o. Petitioner challenged the above order of Executive Council by means of writ petition No. 4994 of 1991 which was allowed and the resolution of the Executive Council dismissing the petitioner's appeal, was quashed. The Executive Council was further directed to re-hear the appeal of the petitioner on the material which was before the Vice-Chancellor. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court in the above writ petition of the petitioner, is reproduced below : "the petition succeeds and is allowed. The aforesaid resolution of the Executive Council is quashed. The Executive Council is directed to re-hear the appeal of the petitioner on the material on record which was before the Vice-Chancellor and give its own decision on merits and in accordance with law. We have no doubt that the Executive Council shall dispose of the appeal of the petitioner very expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. Date 25-11-1991. " The Executive Council thereafter dismissed the appeal again, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee appointed by it, by a resolution dated 17/19-1-1993, which was communicated to the petitioner by the Regis trar by letter dated 26-2-1993-12-3-1993. Being aggrieved by it the peti tioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) ON 30-3-1993 this Court while entertaining the petitioner's writ petition, passed the following order : "learned counsel for the respondents prays and is allowed ten days' time to serve copy of counter- affidavit. Petitioner will have three day's time to serve copy of rejoinder affidavit. List this case on 26th April, 1993,'when learned counsel for res pondent shall produce relevant record pertaining to the enquiry including the one conducted by one-man Committee appointed by Executive Council. " By the above order ten day's time was granted to the respondents who were represented by a learned counsel, to file counter-affidavit and the case was directed to be listed on 26-4-1993, on which date learned Counsel for the respondents was to produce the relevant record pertaining to the enquiry including the report of one-man Committee. However, neither any counter-affidavit was filed nor was the record produced by the respondents before this Court. ON 9-2-1994 the respondents were given further time of two weeks for |filing counter-affidavit. Even then no counter-affidavit was filed. ON 16-3- 1994 they were granted three week's and no more time to file counter-affidavit. But again they failed to file the counter-affidavit. The case thereafter was listed for some times, but could not be taken up. It was on 21-3-1996 that this case could be taken up in presence of the learned counsel for both the parties, on which date learned counsel for the respon dents had filed the counter-affidavit. Inspite of the stop order passed on 16-3-1994 for filing counter-affidavit we have accepted the counter-affidavit, as the case argued by learned counsel for both the parties. The petitioner has also filed rejounder- affidavit on the above date. We have heard learned counsel for parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made four submissions in support of the writ petition, viz. (i) Executive Council has passed the impugned resolution in violation of the principles of natural justice ; (ii) the resolution of the Executive Council is in violation of this Court's judgment dated 25-11-1991, whereby the petition's writ petition was allowed and the Executive Council was required to decide his appeal; (iii) even on facts no case of misconduct or fraud is made out against the petitioner ; and (iv) uncalled for harassment has been caused to the petitioner by the respondents by their acts and omission. There is violation of the principles of natural justice |for two reasons, namely, (i) the Executive Council passed the impugned resolution relying on the report of one-man Committee without giving its copy or gist thereof to the petitioner and (2) the Executive Council also placed reliance on the facts/allegations which were neither mentioned in the charge-sheet nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to rebut them. This is clear from the following facts and circumstances.
(3.) AFTER this Court's decision dated 25-11-1991, whereby the earlier resolution of the Executive Council dismissing the petitioner's appeal was quashed and direction was issued to decide the appeal afresh, the Executive Council appointed the one-man Committee by order dated 7/8-4-1992, to make enquiry in the whole matter and submit its report. This Committee gave oral hearing to the petitioner and submitted its report to the Executive Council. Relying on the said report the Executive Council dismissed the appeal by resolution dated 17/19-1-1993, relevant extract from which is reproduced below : "the report of the Committee appointed by the Executive Council vide ECRNo. 41 dated 7-8th April, 1992, arising out of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court was discussed at length. The Council was of the considered opinion that insertion of mother's and daughters name by Dr. Lalji Prasad Gupta cannot be ignored as an inadvertent mistake and cannot be condoned as an "admitted" mistake only because two days after the submis sion of his original T. A. bill containing the above two names he requested for a correction. It was an after-thought and cannot mitigate the seriousness of a deliberate fraud. Dr. Gupta committed a similar offence when he had availed of L. T. C. earlier (Block of 1978-88) in which he had declared Sanju as his son which is not a fact. " In paragraphs 27, 38, 40 and 41 of the writ petition the petitioned had stated that copy of the enquiry report was not given to him before his appeal was dismissed and the impugned resolution has been passed by the Executive Council in violation of the principles of natural justice. In paragraph 36 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated by the University that there was no enquiry in strict sense and the Executive Council merely appointed one of its members to prepare a report so that the matter is compiled and concised in order to facilitate the deliberation by the members of the Executive Council. Petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit denying the above averments contained in the counter-affidavit. The aforesaid stand of the respondents does not appear to be correct for two reasons ; firstly, nature of the Committee, its power and the purpose for which it was appointed, can be known only from the order of appointment and the report submitted by it. The respondents have not placed those documents before this Court, in spite of this Court's order dated 30-3-1993, directing them to "produce relevant record pertaining to the enquiry conducted including the one conducted by One-man Committee appointed by the Execu tive Council". Not only that the respondents have failed to comply with the above order, dated 30-3-1993, but they have also not filed these docu ments alongwith the counter-affidavit. This Court is, therefore, fully justifi ed to draw an adverse inference against the respondents ; and secondly, the perusal of the impugned resolution of the Executive Council and the plead ings of the parties clearly indicate that an Enquiry Committee which was appointed by the Executive Council, after giving oral hearing to the peti tioner, submitted its report which was discussed at length in the meeting of the Executive Council. Had the report been merely a statement containing compilation of the facts so as to facilitate the deliberation in the meeting of the Executive Council, it was not required to be "discussed at length"-;