- (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition primarily to challenge the inquiry report on the ground that the same is illegal arbitrary and held in violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing order dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-34) on the ground that the same is vitiated for violation of natural justice, inasmuch as the Vice-Chancellor has participated in the proceedings of the Board of Management while deciding his appeal and, thus, it would show that he has become a judge of his own cause.
(2.) As per the petitioner, he has been victimized as he had some differences with Prof. P.S. Malik, who was Head of the Department.
(3.) One Ms. Sunita Rani was doing the thesis under the petitioner. Prof. PS Malik Head of the Department was relieved for 28 days. He wrote a letter to Prof. Raj Singh to cancel the thesis seminar of Ms. Sunita Rani. Seminar, however, was conducted successfully, which could not be attended by Prof. P.S. Malik. Thesis submitted by Ms. Sunita Rani was, accordingly, submitted for onward transmission to the Dean, Post Graduate Studies (PGS). The Dean, however, sent back 3 copies of the thesis and kept one copy for onward transmission to the external examiner. Prof. P.S. Malik wrote a letter that the thesis contained serious mistakes and the same be returned. Professor and Head of the Department, therefore, returned 4 copies of the thesis after necessary corrections. For this, Prof. P.S. Malik sought explanation of the petitioner. He was also issued a notice on 4.1.2005. Some objections were pointed out by evaluating thesis, which were also removed and Ms. Sunita Rani appeared for examination and after that, another thesis evaluation report was circulated amongst the members of the Committee. To cut the long story in short, there was some difference in the manner of evaluating thesis. On account of this, some differences arose between the petitioner and Prof. P.S. Malik. As per the petitioner, Prof. Malik had also some difference of opinion with the earlier Head of the Department and he wanted the petitioner to toe his line. On account of this, Prof. Malik wrote a letter to the petitioner with original evaluation report along with some suggestions made by the external examiner. It is alleged that the petitioner did not return the original report. It is also alleged that the petitioner had submitted another evaluation report. An explanation was sought as to why the petitioner had replaced the original evaluation report. The petitioner in turn approached the Head of the Department.;