Supreme Court of India
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRAversusUNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 99
- Decided
- 6 February 2015
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA
Holding
The departmental inquiries were tainted by bias and violation of natural justice, rendering the termination orders illegal; the appellant was reinstated.
Summary
Professor Ramesh Chandra, a chemistry professor at the University of Delhi, was punished and dismissed on allegations of concealing his removal as Vice‑Chancellor of Bundelkhand University and of misrepresenting his role as Director of the Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research (ACBR). The University framed charge‑sheets after deciding to punish him, appointed a retired Delhi High Court judge—who had previously acted as counsel for the University—as the inquiry officer, and denied the appellant legal representation. The Supreme Court found that the inquiry was biased, violated the rules of natural justice, and that the University lacked authority to impose a permanent bar. Consequently, the punitive orders were set aside, the appellant was reinstated as professor with half back‑wages, and the University was directed not to engage retired judges who were former counsel as inquiry officers.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental inquiry conducted by the University violated principles of natural justice.
- Whether the appointment of a retired High Court judge, previously a counsel for the University, as inquiry officer created bias rendering the inquiry invalid.
- Whether denial of assistance of a legal practitioner to the employee in a disciplinary inquiry is unfair.
- Whether the charges framed constitute misconduct justifying termination and a permanent bar under University Ordinances.
- Whether the University had statutory power to impose the punitive orders.
Legislation cited
Subjects
service lawtermination of servicenatural justicebiasdepartmental inquiryuniversity regulationsretired judgelegal practitionermisconductreinstatement
Judgment
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 63
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA A
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.8224 of 2012) B
FEBRUARY 6, 2015
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKiiOPADHAYA, AND
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ]
c
Service law: Termination of service - Respondent-
University decided to punish the appellant and
subsequently framed memorandum of charges - Show
cause notice was issued and inquiry was conducted just to D
give a colour of legal procedure - Departmental inquiries
conducted against the appellant, were in violation of rules
of natural justice - Order of termination cannot be upheld.
Administrative law:
E
Bias - Retired judge appointed as inquiry officer by
respondent-University to conduct Disciplinary inquiry
against the appellant - Retired judge before his
appointment as judge was a lawyer of respondent-
University - Held: Disciplinary authority should not engage F
such retiredjudge as inquiry officer as it may amount to
bias.
Natural justice - Held: If any person who is or was a
legal practitioner, including a retired judge is appointed as G
Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee,
the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged .
employee is unfair.
63 H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. First charge-sheet memorandum dated 2"d
November 2005. The Inquiry Officer, by its report held
that the appellant had concealed the fact of his removal
from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand
8
University where he was on deputation with a view to
mislead the D!')lhi University and that despite his not
being Director of ACBR, he continued to describe
himself as Founder Director or Director, ACBR with a
c view to give a misleading impression, stand proved.
Thereafter the formal order of punishment was issued
communicating displeasure of the Executive Council,
·holding the act of the appellant to be unbecoming of a
teacher of the University and prohibiting the appellant
o from being associated with any affairs of ACBR in any
capacity whatsoever. The said facts showed that the
respondent first decided to punish the appellant and
only thereafter memorandum of charges was framed,
show-cause notice was issued and inquiry was
E conducted, just to give it a colour of legal procedure.
There is nothing to suggest that the appellant 'wilfully'
suppressed the material fact that he was removed from
service before completion of term of his deputation to
mislead the respondents. It is true that the appellant in
F normal course should ·have informed the Delhi
University before rejoining that he has been removed
. from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand
University, Jhansi before the completion of his
deputation period. Such action can be termed to be
G "dereliction. of duty" but cannot be held to be
misconduct for the purpose of restraining the appellant
permanently from appointment to the post of Director,
AC BR. It is not in dispute that the appellant was the First
H Director of the ACBR. Therefore, in hi$ letter-head he
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 65
DELHI
has shown him as Founder Director of ACBR, that A
cannot be said to be against the Code of Conduct to
hold the same as 'misconduct' on the part of the
appellant. This apart, as there is no provision in the
concerned statute to withhold appointment permanently,
it was not open to the University to pass such order. B
For the said reasons, the order of punishment cannot
be upheld. [Paras 12,14 - 17] [82-D, 88-E-H; 89-A-B, E-
H; 90-A-E]
2. Second/third chargesheet - Memorandum dated c
27th August 2007 and 16 October 2007. A fresh
memorandum was issued by the University on 271h
August, 2007 alleging that the appellant caused ACBR
to pay an amount of Rs.16,63,284/- towards unauthorized
expenditures incurred by him like telephone bills and D
bills of security guards and peon, during the period 1999-
2005 though he was not functioning as Director of ACBR
during the said period. In the memorandum dated 16th
October, 2007, the appellant was imputed with the
charge that by acting as a signatory who subscribed E
his name to the registration of ACBR as a society and
by verifying the affidavit which affirmed that he has no
objection towards the location of the registered office
of ACBR in the· University Campus, the appellant
attempted to misappropriate the assets of the University. F
In the inquiry report, the background of appointment of
the appellant since 1992 was referred, though it had no
connection with charges. No such fact or evidence was
brought regarding the background history of the
appellant was mentioned in the (third) charge-sheet nor G
any such evidence is on record produced by the
University. The Inquiry Officer noticed the letter of the
Chancellor, Bundelkhand University dated 28th July, 2005
confirming the removal of the appellant as the Vice-
Chancellor of the University though it was not part of H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A the charges nor such evidence was cited in the imputed
charges or list of evidence. Influenced by the said
. extraneous facts and consideration, which were not the
part of the chargesheet or the evidence cited by the
University and without intimating such facts to the
B appellant the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty.
[paras 18, 19, 21] [ 90-F-H; 91-D-F; 99-G-H; 100-A-E]
3. The original 'note' relating to engagement of a
retired Judge of the High Court for conducting inquiry
C was given by Registrar of the University. The said note
showed that a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court was
appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the
Departmental Inquiry against the appellant as prior to
his elevation to High Court as a Judge, he was the
D counsel for the Delhi University. If a retired Judge of a
Court before his appointment as a Judge was a lawyer
of any of the party (Delhi University), the Disciplinary
Authority should not engage such retired Judge as an
Inquiry Officer, as the other party may allege bias
E against the Inquiry Officer and the reputation of the
Judge may be at stake. The University is directed not
to engage any retired Judge of any Court, who was
earlier a counsel of the University as an Inquiry Officer
F to hold an inq!Jiry against any of its employee. [Paras
25, 26] [101-H; 102-A-8, E-G]
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar
Raghvendranath Nandkami and others, (1983) 1SCC124;
J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation,
G .(1991) 2 SCC 283 - relied on.
4. If any person who is or •uas a legal practitioner,
including a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed as
Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an
H employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 67
DELHI
to the charged employee would be unfair. All the A
Departmental inquiries conducted against the appellant
were in violation of rules of natural justice. This apart
as the third inquiry report is based on extraneous facts
and first part of the charge held to be proved being not
the part of the charges shown in the (third) chargesheet, B
the order of punishment cannot be upheld. Both penal
memoranda dated 22"d February, 2010 and 261h March,
2010 are set aside. In effect, the appellant stands
reinstated to the post of Professor but in the facts and
circumstances, only 50% of back wages (salary) is C
allowed to appeltant for the intervening period i.e. from
the date of his disengagement till the date of this
judgment. [Paras 30 to 32] [105-C-G] ·
Case Law Reference D
(1983) 1 sec 124 relied.on. Para 28
(1991) 2 sec 283 relied on. Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. E
8224 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2012 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 2547 of 2010
F
R. Venkatarar:nani, Balaji Srinivasan, Piyush Sharma,
Aljo Joseph, Prashant Chandra, Shodhan Sobey, Neelam
Singh for the Appellant.
P. P. Rao, Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal, Akshat G
Kulshrestha, Shashank Manish for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This
appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 3 S.C.R.
A impugned judgment dated 1•1 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
B 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.
C 2. 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
D letter dated 151 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
E 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
F submitted by the appellant for establishment of ACBR in the
University and necessary certificate was given to the
Government of lndia by the University, especially in respect
of autonomy of the ACBR. The Central Government
accepted the proposal and the Prime Minister laid down the
G 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.
H Ordinance XX of the University relates to Colleges and
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 69
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Institutions maintained by the University including ACBR. A 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 20'" December, 1991 approved the B
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 15'h February, 1992
accepted and approved the recommendations of the C
Academic Council. Pursuant to the said Resolution, the
Assistant Registrar (E-NT) issued a letter dated 30'h May,
1995 informing th~ appellant about the decision of the Vice
Chancellor, appointing him as the Director of ACBR till a D
regular appointment is made to the said post.
2.1) 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 E
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 F
Chairman of Publication Advisory Committee, University of
Delhi during the said period.
2.2) 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 G
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, H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 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.
2.3) On 20 1h September, 1999, the Registrar of
B 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.
c
2.4) On 61h 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
o 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
E 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.
F 2.5) 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.
G
2.6) In February, 2005, ~ Search Committee for
selection for the post of Vice Chancellor in University was
constituted. The· appellant as well as respondent no.2-
Professor Deepak Penta! were candidates whose names
H were initially short listed by the Search Committee. In the
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 71
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MU~HOPADHAYA, J.]
meantime, the appellant was removed from the post of Vice A
Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh
by order dated 16~ July, 2005 fifteen days prior to the expiry
of his tenure.
2.7) The aforesaid order of removal was challenged by B
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 C
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 D
of Science, University of Delhi; Chairman, Governi.ng Body,
ACBR and Dy. Registrar, ACBR. Further, according to the
appellant, on the same day i.e. on 181" 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 E
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 F
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 u/s 12(10) of the U.P. State
Universiti13s Act, 1973, the Principal Secretary to the G
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, H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 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 (Chahcellor, Bundelkhand University) further
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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.
G
2.8) 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
H University, his joining to Delhi University was accepted w.e.f.
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 73
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
18th July, 2005. He also placed reliance on decision of A
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 B
a letter on 23'd 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 17'" October, 2005
that the appellant will not be allowed to hold any C
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- D
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 E
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.
2.9) On 2"d Novem):>er, 2005 a memorandum was F
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.
2.10) The appellant submitted his reply on 121"
December, 2005 and requested for supply of certain G
documents. According to him, the documents were not
supplied to him.
2.11) Further case of the appellant is that the Governing
Body of ACBR after considering all the communications H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
c
2.12) 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
D until further orders. On 25th January, 2006 the Registrar of
the University forwarded another memorandum calling upon
appellant's explanation w.r.t. m~morandum dated 2nd
November, 2005 within fifteen days. The appellant
submitted his final reply on 8th February, 2006.
E
2.13) It appears that the appellant in the meantime
moved an appeal before the Executive Council against
Resolution d_ated 17th October, 2005 but no decision
appears to have been taken. The Governing Body of ACBR
F continued with its efforts towards registration of the Centre
as a Society. On 51h September, 2006, the appellant was
instructed by the Governing Body to file documents for the
registration of the ACBR with the Registrar, Societies, Govt.
of NCT, to file an approved affidavit stating that the ACBR
G 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.
H 2.14) The appellant earlier moved before the High Court
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 75
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
in Writ Petition No.16000 of 2006 challenging the Resolution A
of Executive Council dated 17th October, 2005. Allegation
of bias was made against Prof. Deepak Penta! therein.
2.15) On 21st March, 2007 Executive Council of the
University passed a resolution to appoint a retired High B
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 ttie University. C
2.16) Justice 'X' - a retired Judge of the High Court was
appqinted to inquire into the allegation against the appellant
acid vide letter dated 23rd May, 2007 he informed the
appellant of his appointment and called him for the hearing D
on 4th June, 2007. The appellant moved before the High
Court by filing writ petition praying for stay of all further
proceedings against him. _
.
2.17) In the meantime, the High Court of Allahabad vide E
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 F
order was contrary to the provisions of the UP State
Universities Act, 1973.
2.18) The aforesaid fact was intimated to the Vice
Chancellor of University of Delhi on 16th June, 2007 with a G
request to withdraw the resolutions and memorandum
passed against the appellant.
2.19) A fresh memorandum was issued by the
University on 27th August, 2007 alleging that the appellant H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 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
B charges.
2.20) Another memorandum was issued by the
University on 16th October, 2007 imputing charges of
misconduct against the appellant and the appellant was
C asked to submit his written explanation to the said
memorandum within fifteen days.
2.21) The writ petition being W.P.C. No.16000 of 2006
preferred by the appellant challenging the Resolution dated
o 17th October, 205 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
E 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 22"d March, 2007. The appellant being
F 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.
G
2.22) 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
H Penta! in the matter of issuance of the charge sheet. This
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 77
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Court initially vide order dated 18th September, 2009 A
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 21" October, 2009. A copy
of the inquiry report was forwarded to the appellant. B
According to the appellant, Inquiry Officer neither allowed
oral evidences nor supplied relevant documents sought by
him. The appellant submitted tiis reply to the said report on
28th January, 2010.
c
2.23) 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 23m February, 2010. A copy of the inquiry
report pursuant to memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 D
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 E
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 F
aforesaid decision was communicated to the appellant by
the Registrar.
2.24) 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 21•t May, 2009 in G
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 H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 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 1•t March,
2012.
B
3. 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
C 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
D communication d.ated 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.
E
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 ur dereliction of duty if found during
F 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 ii> noticed that its employee was prematurely
removed from an office to which he was deputed to on
G account of certain charges against him.
4. 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,
H memoranda cannot be said to be charges or allegations
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 79
DE' ~I [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
considered or approved by the Executive Council A
(Disciplinary Authority).
The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view
of the stand taken by the University and the material on
record. B
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 c
memorandum dated 16111 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, o
2007.
:;. 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 E
ef!ective 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
leveled against the appellant. F
6. Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the
appellant was that there were illegalities in the conduct of
the inquiry. According to him the appellant requested the
assi~tance of a legal practitioner as the presenting officer G
as well as the Inquiry Officer was legally qualified person
regularly engaged in disciplinary proceedings but the said
request was declined. It was further submitted that the
appellant was not given opportunity for examination of
witness and there was no legal evidence before the Inquiry H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Officer to bring home the charges.
We have gone through the inquiry report(s) submitted
by the Inquiry Officer and other records. The aforesaid
submission advanced on behalf of the appellant will be
B discussed at an appropriate stage.
7. With regard to appellant's allegation of mala fide
against Prof. Deepak Pental, it was rightly contented on
behalf of the respondents that in view of earlier decision of
c this Court in special leave petition preferred by the appellant
and in absence of any specific evidence, plea of mala fide
cannot be raised.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended
that the service of the appellant was terminated without
0
providing any notice as provided for in para 6 of the
Annexure to Ordinance XI which reads as follows:-
"6.(1 )Notwithstanding anything herein before
contained, the Executive Council of the University
E shall be entitled summarily to determine the
engagement of the teacher on the ground of
misconduct in accordance with the provisions
hereinafter set forth.
F (2) The Vice-Chancellor may, 'when he deems it
necessary, suspend the teacher on the ground af
misconduct. When he suspends the teacher, he
shall report it to the next meeting of the Executive
Council.
G
(3) The Executive Council shall investigate all
matters reported to it by the Vice-Chancellor about
the misconduct of the teacher whether he has been
suspended or not. The Executive Council may
H appoint a Committee for the purpose. The teacher
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 81
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, 'J.]
shall be notified in writing of the charges against A
him and shall be given not less than three weeks'-
time to submit his explanation in writing.
The Executive Council or the Committee may hear
the teacher and take such evidence as it may B
consider necessary. The Executive Council may
determine the engagement of the teacher where it
deems that the misconduct of the teacher·deserves
to be dealt .within that manner, after it has
considered the explanation and the evidence, if c
. any, and/or the report of the Committee, if one has
been appointed.
(4) Where the termination of the service on the
ground of misconduct is after suspension by the D
Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, the termination of
service may be from the date of suspension, if the
Executive Council so directs."
9. In the present case, as noticed above, detailed E
procedure is followed in terms of said provision. The
appellant was suspended by the Vice-Chancellor on the
ground of misconduct. Notice was served upon the
appellant and the j::xecutive Council resolved to conduct an
inquiry giving opportunity to the. appellant to appear before F
the inquiry officer. .Disciplinary authority terminated the
service of the appellant after following all the due
procedures. TherefOre, the said submission as advanced
on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.
G
10. Before the High Court and this Court, one of the
pleas taken was that the charges as shown in the
memoranda do not constitute any misconduct. The High
Court observed that misconduct though not defined in the
Act or in Ordinance XI or in the Annexure thereto, is a well H
82 SUPREME.COURT REPORTS (2015] 3 S.C.R.
A understood term and paragraph 6 of Ordinance XI cannot
be held to be bad and liable to be struck down merely for
the reason of misconduct having not been defined.
11. On behalf of appellant, it was further contended that
B the departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of
rules of natural justice and extraneous matters were taken
into consideration to hold the appellant guilty. But such
submission was disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the
university.
c
12. Before 'dealing with rival contentions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, we deem it proper to deal
with the chargesheet - procedure followed in the
departmental proceedings and order of punishment.
D
A) 1st Chargesheet - memorandum dated 21!l!
November, 2005 The charges levelled against the
appellant can be summarized as follows:
(i) The appellant wilfully suppressed the material
E fact that the appellant was removed from the post
of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi
before the completion of term of his deputation, to
mislead the University.
F (ii) The appellant wrote letter dated 81h August, 2005
to the Vice Chancellor in which he signed as
Founder Director of ACBR knowing well that the
term 'Founder Director' gave a misleading
impression that he was the founder and was
G continuing as its Director. Further there is no such
post as Founder Director
(iii) He has written other letters that gives
misleading impression about his status.
H
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 83
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Before dealing with the correctness of the above A
allegations, we would like to discuss the background events
which took place prior to the issuance of the said
memorandum.
13. The Executive Council of the University of Delhi by B
its Resolution dated 17.n October, 2005 first decided to
punish the appellant for his alleged acts and to issue a
show-cause notice to the appellant. This is apparent from
the Resolution No.132 dated 171h October, 2005 which
reads as follows: C
"132. The Executive Council considered letters
received from (a) the Principal Secretary to the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh dated 26. 7.2005, (b) the
Registrar, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi dated o
2.8.2005, and (c) the Joint Secretary, UGC dated
4.8.2005 forwarding therewith a copy of the order
of the Chancellor of Bundelkhand University dated
16. 7. 2005 indicating removal of Prof. Ramesh
Chandra from the post of the Vice-Chancellor, E
Bundelkhand University. After due deliberations on
the above mentioned letters, the Council resolved
that:
(i) Prof. Ramesh Chandra be not allowed to hold F
any administrative position in Delhi University
henceforth."
(ii) A show cause notice be issued to Prof. Ramesh
Chandra for (a suppressing information with G
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, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Centre for Bio-medical Research, Delhi
University for the period from 18. 7. 2005 to
24. 7.2005 in contravention of the statutory
provisions of the University; and
B (iii) The decision, if any, taken by or at the instance
of Prof. Ramesh Chandra, while unauthorisedly
occupying the post of the Director, Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research, or
thereafter, be treated as null and void."
c
It is only after such decision to punish the appellant the
formal chargesheet was issued by memorandum dated 2"d
November, 2005 as quoted hereunder:
·"UNIVERSITY.OF DELHI
D
No. Estab. V(T)/200512083
November 2, 2005.
E MEMORANDUM
Whereas it is noted that Prof. Ramesh Chandra,
Department of Chemistry, vide his letter dated
18thJuly, 2005 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor
conveyed that after completing his tenure as Vice-
F
Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, he had
returned back and reported for duty as Professor
in the Department of Chemistry with effect from
18.7.2005 by this statement. Prof. Ramesh
Chandra willfully suppressed the material fact that
G
he was removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor,
Bundelkhand University before the completion of
the term of his deputation, to mislead the University
authority.
H And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra, on
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 85
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
reporting for duty in the University, unauthonsedly A
tried to join as Director, ACBR as is evident from
the notification No. ACBRI05fl43 dated 18. 7.2005
issued by the Deputy Registrar, ACBR which stated
that Prof. Ramesh Chandra had joined back as
fufltime Director of ACBR in the afternoon of B
18. 7.2005 after completing the tenure as Vice-
Chancel/or, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. This
notification (a) conveyed a misleading impression
that he had joined there after completion of tenure
as Vice-Chancellor of Bundelkhand University c
whereas he was actually removed from the post
on charges of abuse of power before completion
of his tenure; and (b) misleadingly referred to
Establ. V(T)/99/ACBR/35657 dated 20'h
D
September, 1999 to wrongly convey that as per this
order he could join as full-time Director. The Order
No.Estab. (T)V/99/ACBR/35657 dated 20.9.1999
deals with appointment of Prof. Vani Brahamchan·
as officiating Director and specified the period of E
her office as the period during the leave of Prof.
Ramesh Chandra and merely permitted Prof.
Ramesh Chandra to provide academic leadership
to ACBR. This arrangement at that point of time
and consequently ATTEMPT OF Prof. Ramesh F
Chandra to join as Director of ACBR was ultra
vires, and therefore, null and void ab initio. Then
at the instance of this University's letter dated
19. 7.2005 clarified that the notification for Prof.
Ramesh Chandra's joining as Director stands G
withdrawn:
And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra wrote a Jetter
dated 8.8.2005 to the Vice-Chancellor, in which he
signed as Founder Director, ACBR, knowing well H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A that the tenn 'founder director' gave a misleading
impression that he was the 'founder director of the
Centre or Was the founder and was continuing as
its Director. When Prof. Ramesh Chandra was
placed in additional charge of the post of Director
B of ACBR vide letter No. Estab.111/BRAC/95 dated
30.5.2005, his substantive post was that of a
professor of Chemistry in the University. All
incumbent moves away from his substantive post
on deputation/EOL. Further, there is no such post
c as founder director. Therefore, signing a letter
addressed to the Vice-Chancellor on 8. 8. 2005 as
founder director ;was clearly to give a misleading
impression about its position in ACBR which
besides being non-existent, was neither legally
D
sustainable nor administratively proper because
Prof. Ramesh Chandra was appointed in the
Chemistry Department of the Delhi University and
not appointed/deputed to ACBR as Professor;
E And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had further
written letters dated 9.9.2005 and 26.9.2005 on the
letter pad of ACBR signing as Director which seeks
to convey a misleading impression about his status.
He wrote to the Chainnan of the Governing Body,
F
ACBR vide his letter dated 30.8.2005. In which he
had referred to some decisions of the governing
body to resume as Director of ACBR. This act of
Prof. Ramesh Chandra tantamount to seeking
G perpetuation of the same misleading impression as
indicated above.
And whereas the University had clarified the
position with.regard to the post of Director, ACBR
vide its letter no. SPA/R2005/2007 dated 29. 8.2005
H
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 87
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
addressed to the Chairman of the Governing body A
of ACBR with copy to the officiating Director of
ACBR in which it was clearly stated that there was
no provision .of retaining lien on the additional
charge and that Prof. Vani Brahmachari continue
to be the officiating Director until a regular director B
was appointed.
And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra's
unauthorized and irregular attempts of usurpation
to the post of Director ACBR tantamount to creation C
of false records and tampering with other records
of ACBR which is a serious misconduct on his part.
And whereas the above acts of Prof. Ramesh
Chandra on irregularly insisting on his position as o
additional charge of the Director in the ACBR
without having undergone the process of selection
prescribed in 9lauses 4 of sub-heading 6 on ACBR
contained in Ordinance XX tantamount to gross
misconduct within the meaning of clause 6 of E
Annexure to Ordinance XI of the University.
And whereas some of the examples of
misconduct on the part of Prof. Ramesh Chandra,
particularly, the suppression of facts of his removal F
from the post of Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand
University to convey misleading impression that he
repatriated from Bundelkhand University after
completing his tenure and the unauthorized claim
about directorship of ACBR were discussed by the G
Executive Council in its meeting on 1?fh October,
2005 and the Executive Council decided that his
explanation be called for his above mentioned acts
of serious misconduct;
H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Now, therefore, Prof. Ramesh Chandra is hereby
directed to submit in writing an explanation to this
memorandum within 15 days of its date of issue,
failing which it shall be presumed that he has no
explanation to offer and the matter shall be placed
B before EC ·for consideration/action in accordance
with Clause 6 of Ordinance XI of the University of
Delhi.
Registrar
C Prof. Ramesh Chandra
Department of Chemistry
University of Delhi
Delhi."
D
14. The retired Judge of Delhi High Court, Justice 'X',
Inquiry Officer, by the report dated 24th November, 2009 held
as follows:
E "For all the~e reasons, I am of the opinion that the
charges against the delinquent that he had
concealed the fact of his removal from the post of
Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University with a
view to mislead the University and that despite his
F not being Director of ACBR, he continued to
describe himself as Founder Director or Director,
ACBR with a view to give a misleading impression,
stand proved.
G 'X'
Dated: 24.11.2009 Inquiry Officer
lffRUE COPY/I"
H Thereafter the formal order of punishment was
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 89
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
issued by memorandum dated 22"d February, 2010 A
communicating displeasure of the Executive Council,
holding the act of the appellant to be unbecoming of a
teacher of the University and prohibiting the appellant from
being associated with any affairs of ACBR in any capacity
whatsoever. The relevant portion of the said memorandum B
reads as follows:
"And, therefore, Prof. Ramesh Chandra (under
suspension)· is hereby communicated the
displeasure of the Executive Council and that the C
act is unbecoming of a teacher of the University.
Prof. Ramesh Chandra (under suspension) is
further communicated the decision of the
Executive Council that he shall not be associated
with any affairs of the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre D
for Biomedical Research in any capacity
whatsoever and that he shall not be considered
for any administrative position in the University.
Prof. Ramesh Chandra shall continue to be under
suspension till furlf1er orders. " E
From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the respondent
first decided to punish the appellant and only thereafter
memorandum .of charges was framed, show-cause notice
was issued and inquiry was conducted, just to give it a F
colour of legal procedure.
15. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the
appellant 'wilfully' suppressed the material fact th~t he was
removed from service before completion of term of his G
deputation to mislead the respondents. It is true that the
appellant in normal course should have informed the Delhi
University before rejoining that he has been removed from
the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi
before the completion of his deputation period. Such action H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A can be termed to be "dereliction of duty" but cannot be
held to be misconduct for the purpose of restraining the
appellant permanently from appointment to the post of
Director, ACBR.
B 16. It is not in dispute that the appellant was the First
Director of the ACBR. The same was also accepted by the
Delhi University in its memorandum dated 2nd November,
2005. Therefore, in his letter-head he has shown him as
Founder Director of ACBR, that cannot be said to be against
C the Code of Conduct to hold the same as 'misconduct' on
the part of the appellant.
17. This apart, as there is no provision in the concerned
statute to withhold appointment permanently, it was not
D open to the University to pass such order.
For the reasons aforesaid, the order of punishment
contained in Memorandum dated 22nd February, 2010
cannot be upheld. The said memorandum is accordingly
E declared illegal and cannot be upheld.
B) i!!l! Chargesheet - Memorandum dated 271!!
August. 2007:
18. A fresh ·memorandum was issued by the University
F on 271h August, 2007 alleging that the appellant caused
ACBR to pay an amount of Rs.16,63,284/- towards
unauthorized expenditures incurred by him like telephone
bills and b\lls of security guards and peon, during the period
1999-2005 though he was not functioning as Director of
G ACBR duri'ng the said period.
The appellant denied the allegation and again retired
Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice 'X' was appointed
as Inquiry Officer who by his report dated 23•d February,
H 2010 held that none of the charges against the appellant
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 91
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
has been proved. Relevant portion of the said inquiry report A
reads as follows:
"In view of the above discussion, none of the
charges against the delinquent has been proved
and he is, therefore, absolved of all the charges B
against him leveled vide the memorandum dated
271h August, 2007.
Justice 'X', (Retd.)
Dated: 23.02.2010 Inquiry Officer" c
C) ~!'..!!. Chargesheet - Memorandum dated 161!!
October, 2007:
19. In the memorandum dated 161h October, 2007 the D
appellant was imputed with the charge which can be
summarized as follows:
By acting as a signatory who subscribed his name to
the registration of ACBR as a society and by verifying the E
affidavit which affirmed that he has no objection towards
the location of the registered office of ACBR in the University
Campus, the appellant attempted to misappropriate the
'
assets of the University. Such act was alleged to be a
misconduct. The memorandum dated 161h October, 2007 F
reads as follows:
"MEMORANDUM
Whereas it has come to the notice of the
G
University that Prof. Ramesh Chandra is one of
the signatories who subscribed their names to the
proposed formation of a Society by the name "Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research"
with the description! of its office as "old USIC H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Building Delhi University Campus, Delhi-7". As per
the records of the Registrar of Societies Delhi this
society has been registered on 7.9.2006 vide
Registration No.56511. This is in violation of rules
and regulations of the University. Dr. B.R.
B Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research (ABCR)
is an institution maintained by the University. The
University has not resolved or contemplated to form
a society out of the existing ACBR. Since the
proposal in the society registered on 7.9.2006 has
c shown the existing ACBR under the University of
Delhi as. its address it tantamount to
misappropriation of the assets of University
maintained institution for an unauthorized purpose.
Thus, such a move is fraudulent.
D
And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had given an
affidavit which was verified by him on 5.9.06 which
he had solemnly affirmed that
E "/ shall have no objection if the registered office of
the society named "Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for
Biomedical Research' shall be situated at my above
said premises." The building in which the A CBR of
the University of Delhi is situated is the property
F of the University and no one has any right
whatsoever: to appropriate it for any purpose other
than what the Executive Council of the University
authorizes.
G And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had no locus
standi to give any such affirmation still had
solemnly affirmed in the same affidavit that "ACBR
is the legal al/ottee and in possession of the
property bearing no. Old USIC building Delhi
H University Campus Delhi-7" which is contrary to the
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 93
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKf:iOPADHAYA, J.]
facts. The fact is that the premises where the A
ACBR of the University of Delhi is presently located
(i.e. old US/C building University of Delhi, Delhi-7)
was not allotted by University of Delhi to the
proposed society which was fraudulently registered
on 7.9.2006. B
And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra verified the
above mentioned affidavit on 5.9.2006 saying "that
the contents of the above affidavit are correct, true
and to the best of my knowledge and belief nothing c
has been concealed therefrom". But while verifying
this affidavit on 5. 9. 2006 he fraudulently concealed
a material fact that the authorized body of the
. University of Delhi i.e. the Executive Council had
not resolved to convert ACBR into a registered D
society. He also concealed the fact that he being
a Professor in the Department of Chemistry had no
official position to furnish such affidavit and
therefore this act of Prof. Ramesh Chandra
tantamount to fraudulent misrepresentation of facts E
with a malafide motive.
And whereas the above acts of Prof. Ramesh
Chandra constitute misconduct by misleading the
Registrar of societies Govt. of NCT Delhi and also F
the general public by fraudulently attempting to
convert an University of Delhi as a registered
society and 'clandestinely declaring Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research as a
Society and itsbuilding as its registered office G
which tantamounts to misappropriation of the
University's property."
20. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the
allegation and requested for supply of documents towards H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 3 S.C.R.
A submitting an "effective reply. But the same were· not
supplied. He also sought aid of a lawyer but it was also
denied. Nothing is on the record to suggest that any list of
witnesses or list of documentary evidence was supplied to
the appellant or to the Inquiry Officer. We have gone
B . through the original records supplied by the University. Even
therein, we find no list of witnesses or list of evidence
available to bring home the charges.
(Retd.)Justice 'X' who was again appointed as the
C Inquiry Officer with regard to said charges, submitted a
report dated 23rd February, 2010, holding that the acts of
the appellant giving an affidavit that he had no objection
towards the registration of the ACBR as a Society situated
at the said pre.mises, and getting the Society registered
D without the approval of the University of Delhi, are clearly
the acts of misconduct. The relevant extract of the inquiry
report dated 23'd February, 2010 (relating to the third
chargesheet) reads as follows:
E x x x x x
''The delinquent in the year 1992 was working
as UGC Research Scientist attached to the
Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi. The
F Executive Council of the University of Delhi in its
meeting held on 15th February, 1992 approved the
setting up of B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Bio-medical
Research (in short referred to as ACBR) and the
delinquent while working as UGC Research
G Scientist was allowed to function as officiating
Director of ACBR vide order dated 30th May, 1995
till regular appointment of the Director of the Centre
was made. With effect from 25th June, 1996 the
delinquent is serving as Professor in the
H Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi, even
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 95
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
after his appointment as Professor in the A
Department of Chemistry, he continued to work as
Director, ACBR till he was relieved from the post
of Professor. in Chemistry to take up the
appointment of Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand
University, Jhansi on 31st July, 1999. On his B
appointment as Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand
University, the delinquent sought extraordinary
leave with a lien in his substantive post of
Professor, Department of Chemistry to enable him
to join as Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand Univesity c
and his request was allowed by the Executive
Council of the University. On his taking over as
Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand Univesity, the
University of Delhi vide notification dated 20th
D
September, 1999 appointed Prof. Vani ·
Brahmachari as the Officiating Director, ACBR.
In accordance with his request dated 26th July,
2002 the extraordinary leave of the delinquent was
converted into deputation service. The period of E
deputation was to expire on 31st July 2005. On
13th July, 2005, however, the delinquent came
back and wrote a letter to the University that after
completing his tenure as Vice-Chancellor, he had
returned back and reported for duty as Professor,
F
Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi. It
appears that on 18th July, 2005 itself, a news item
appeared in the newspaper according to which the
delinquent was removed as Vice-Chancellor,
G
Bundelkhand University and the Registrar, Delhi
University, therefore, on the same day, wrote· a
letter to the Commissioner, Jhansi and Principal
Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh
regarding the authenticity of the newspaper report. H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A It is the case of the University that though the
delinquent had joined his substantive post as
Professor, Department of Chemistry but he tried
to clandestinely work as full time Director, ACBR
under the garb of notification dated 18th July, 2005
B of ACBR issued under the signatures of the
Deputy Registrar of the said Centre. On coming
to know of the notification, a note was put up by
the Registrar to the Acting Vice-Chancellor about
the same and on the same day, the Registrar
c asked the Deputy Registrar, ACBR to withdraw the
notification dated 18th July, 2005 whereby the
delinquent was asked to work as Director, ACBR.
In the meantime, Principal Secretary to the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 26th
D
·July, 2005 informed the University confirming the
. removal of the delinquent as Vice-Chancellor in
pursuance of the order dated 16th July, 2005
passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in his
E capacity. as .Chancellor, Bundelkhand University.
This was pursuant to some· departmental
proceedings initiated against the delinquent for his
having allegedly committed financial irregularities
etc. during his tenure as Vice-Charfcellor,
F Bundelkhand University. The aforesaid acts of
delinquent in not informing the University that he
was removed as Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand
University and his allegedly usurping the post of
Director, ACBR were considered to be acts of
G tnisconduct by the University and memorandum
dated 2°d November, 2005 was, accordingly,
issued to him to show cause why disciplinary
proceedings be not initiated against him. Not being
satisfied with the reply of the delinquent, the
H University decided to hold an inquiry and
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 97
DELHl.[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
appointed the undersigned as the Inquiry Officer. A
In the said inquiry it was held that the delinquent
had concealed the fact of his removal from the
post of Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University
with a view to mislead the University and that
despite his not being Director, ACBR, he continued B
to describe as founder Director or Director, ACBR
with a view to give a misleading impression."
x x x x x
"By their unauthorized acts, the Governing Body c
as well as the delinquent had illegally attempted
to convert a University-maintained institution into
a registered society and its building as registered
office of the society. Out of the signatories to the
D
memorandum of association of the society, it is
· only the delinquent who is under the employment
of the University and disciplinary proceedings can,
therefore, be initiated only against the delinquent.
In any case·it cannot be the defence of the E
delinquent that no action can be initiated against
him as no action is taken against other signatories
to the memorandum of association of the society.
It is only the delinquent who has given a wrong
affidavit with a view to mislead the authorities. The F
delinquent knowing fully that he was not the
Director; ACBR at the relevant time as he was not
appointed to the said post in accordance with
Ordinance XX of the Ordinances of the University
of Delhi and there were already incumbents on the G
post, there was no occasion for him to describe
himself as Director; ACBR. It was totally illegal and
unjustified on his part to get a society registered
even on the basis of the resolutions of the
Governing Body and describe the building where H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A ACBR is located as his office as his office and to
convert it into the registered office of the society.
The delinquent could not, in any manner; give an
· affidavit that he had no objection if the registered
office of the society is situate at the premises
8 where ACBR was located. The delinquent was
only a Professor in the Department of Chemistry
and he was not authorised to give any such
affidavit by the University or even by the
Governing Body to depose that the premise~
c where the registered office was proposed to be
situated was "his premises'; I am, therefore, firmly
of the opinion that all these acts of the delinquent
giving an affidavit that he had no objection if the
registered office the society was situated at the
D
said premises and getting the society registered
without the approval of the University of Delhi are ·
clearly the acts of misconduct. Charges against
the delinquent stand proved."
E '
After supplying a copy of the inquiry report to the
appellant for his response, the University issued impugned
memorandum dated 261h March, 2010 holding that the
charges against the appellant are grave and the same are
F in a way an attempt to challenge the powers of the
Executive Council with regard to the general control and
. supervision of the ACBR, as an institution established and
managed by the University_of Delhi under Ordinance XX(6) ·
of the University. It was further held that such acts amounts
G to gross misconduct on .the part of the appellant and the
same is unbecoming of a teacher of the University and
thereby disengaged the appellant, with immediate effect,
in terms of Para 6 of Annexure to Ordinance XI of the
University. Relevant portion of the order of punishment and
H memorandum dated 26th March, 2010 reads as follows:
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 99
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
"And whereas the Council, vide its above A
resolution, noted that the charges leveled against
Prof. Ramesh Chandra are grave and the same
are in a way an attempt to challenge the powers
of the Executive Council with regard to the general
control and supervision of the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar B
Centre for Biomedical Research, as an institution
established and manage-University of Delhi under
Ordinance XX(6) of the University, are acts of
gross misconduct on his part and unbecoming of
· a teacher of the University. c
And whereas the Executive Council further
resolved that the services of Prof. Ramesh
Chandra (under suspension), as Professor in the
Department of Chemistry be disengaged, with D
immediate effect, in terms of clause 6 of Annexure
to Ordinance XI of the University for his grave
misconduct.
And therefore, the services of Prof. Ramesh E
Chandra (under suspension) as Professor in the
Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi stand
disengaged, .with immediate effect, in terms of
clause 6 of Annexure to Ordinance XI of the
University. F
A copy of the Executive Council Resolution
No.281 dated 25.3.2010 is enclosed herewith.
Encl: As above(2 pages). Registrar." G
21. In the inquiry report, the background of
appointment of the appellant since 1992 has been referred,
•
though it had no connection withi charges. No such fact or
evidence was brought regarding the background history of H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A the appellant was mentioned in the (third) chargesheet nor
·any such evidence is on record produced by the University.
The Inquiry Officer noticed the letter of the
Principal Secretary of the Governor of Uttar
B P~adesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University)
dated 28th July, 2005 confirming the removal of the
appellant as the Vice-Chancellor of the University
and the order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the
Governor of U.P. in his capacity of Chancellor,
c Bundelkhand University though it was not part of
the charges nor such evidence was cited in the
imputed charges or list of evidence.
Similarly, though the memorandum. dated 2"d
D November, 2005 or allegation levelled therein was
· not the part of the third chargesheet nor cited as
evidence by the University, the same were also
relied upon.
Influenced by the aforesaid extraneous facts and
E
consideration, which are not the part of the
chargesheet or the evidence cited by the University
and without intimating such facts to the appellant
the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty.
F 22. It appears from the record that the ACBR was
established within the premises of Delhi University on an
initiative by the Central Government according to the
proposal submitted by the appellant. The appellant being
G Director of ACBR, acted in terms of decision of Governing
, Body of ACBR, towards making the ACBR autonomous
within the premises of University. In view of clash of interest
between the officials of the University and the ACBR, one
or other action appears to have been taken against the
H appellant, as apparent from the memorandum of
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 101
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
punishment dated 26th March, 2010, as quoted below: A
"And whereas the Council, vide its above
resolution, noted that the charges leveled against
Prof. Ramesh Chandra are grave and the same are
in a way an attempt to challenge the powers of the
B
Executive Council with regard to the general control
and supervision of the Dr.B. R.Ambedkar Centre for
Biomedical Research, as an institution established
and manage-University of Delhi under Ordinance
XX(6) of the University, are acts of gross c
misconduct on his part and unbecoming of a
teacher of the University."
23. We are not concerned about the bias as alleged
against the 2nd respondent- Prof. Deepak Pantal, Ex-Vice
0
Chancellor as it was not accepted in the first round of
litigation.
However, action of the University can be held to be
rnala fide and illegal for the reasons as detailed below.
E
24. Though there was no allegation leveled against the
appellant in the (third) chargesheet that he attempted to
ctiallenge the powers of the Executive Council with regard
to the general control and supervision of the ACBR, as an
institution established and managed by the University of F
Delhi but such charge was held to be proved by
memorandum dated 26th March, 2010, as noticed and
quoted above.
25. Further one 'note' given by the Registrar and G
approved by the Vice-Chancellor in regard to the
departmentalinquiry being relevant, it is desirable to refer
and discuss the same.
The original 'note' relating to engagement of a retired H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Judge of the High Court for conducting inquiry was given
by Registrar of the University on 3'° April, 2007. From the
said note dated 3'd April, 2007 as approved by the Vice-
Chancellor, we find that Justice 'X' a retired Judge of the
Delhi High Court was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to
B conduct the Departmental Inquiry against the appellant as
prior to his elevation to High Court as a Judge, he was the
counsel for the Delhi University. The relevant portion of the
note reads as follows:
C "Justice X' (name changed), retired Judge of Delhi
High Court had, prior to the elevation to High Court
as a Judge, handled Delhi University cases. He is
well versed with the Delhi University Acts, Statutes
and Ordinances."
D
It was in this background the University decided to
engage him as Inquiry Officer.
26. We are of the opinion that if an Hon'ble retired
E Judge of a Court before his appointment as a Judge was a
lawyer of any of the party (Delhi University herein), the
Disciplinary Authority should not engage such retired Judge
as an Inquiry Officer, as the other party may allege bias
against the Inquiry Officer and the reputation of the Hon'ble
F ·Judge may be at stake.
The University is directed not to engage any Hon'ble
retired Judge of any Court, who was earlier a counsel of
the University as an Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against
G any of its employee.
27. The Inquiry Officer herein being a retired Judge of
the High Court is a person of vast legal acumen and
experience. The Presenting Officer also would be a person
H who had sufficient experience in presenting case before
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 103
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Inquiry Officer. tn this background, it is also require<;! to A
consider whether an application of a delinquent employee
seeking permission to be represented through a legally
trained and qualified lawyer should be allowed or not.
28. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. 8
Dilipkumar Raghvendranath Nandkarni and others,
(1983) 1 SCC 124, this Court observed:
"10 ....... Now if the rules prescribed for such an
enquiry did not place an embargo on the right of
the delinquent employee to be represented by a
c
legal practitioner, the matter would be in the
discretion of the Enquiry Officer whether looking to
the nature of charges, the type of evidence and
complex .or simple issues that .may arise in the D
course of enquiry, the delinquent employee in order
to afford a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself should be permitted to appear through a
legal practitioner ..... ..
E
12 ......... ln our view we have reached a stage in
our onward march to fair play in action that where
in an enquiry before a domestic tribunal the
delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained
mind, if he seeks permission to appear through a F
legal practitioner the refusal to grant this request
would amount to denial of a reasonable request to
defend himself and the essential principles of
natural justice would be violated ...... "
G
29. In J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development
Corporation, (1991) 2 SCC 283, this Court held that the
denial of the assistance of a legal practitioner in inquiry
proceedings would be unfair. This Court held as follows:
"8. It would. appear that in the inquiry, the H
•
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A respondent-Corporation was represented by its
Personnel and Administration Manager who is
stated to be a man of law. The rule itself
recognises that where the charges are so serious
as to entail a dismissal from service the inquiry
B authority may permit the services of a lawyer. This
rule vests a discretion. In the matter of exercise
of this discretion one of the relevant factors is
whether there is likelihood of the combat being
unequal entailing a miscarriage orfailure of justice
c and a denial of a real and reasonable opportunity
for defence by reasons of the appellant being
pitted against a presenting officer who is trained
in law. Legal Adviser and a lawyer are for this
purpose somewhat liberally construed and must
D
include "whoever assists or advises on facts and
in law must be deemed to be in the position of a
legal adviser". In the last analysis, a. decision has
to be reached on a case to case basis on the
E situational particularities and the special
requirements of justice of the case. It is
unnecessqry, therefore, to go into the larger
question "whether as a sequel to an adverse
verdict in a domestic enquiry serious civil and
F pecuniary consequences are likely to ensue, in
order to enable the person so likely to suffer such
consequences with a view to giving him a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself, on his
request, should be permitted to appear through a
G legal practitioner" which was kept open in Board
of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar8.
However, it was held in that case (SCC p. 132,
para 12)
H " ... In our view we have reached a stage in our
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 105
DELHI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
onward march to fair play in action that where in A
an enquiry before a domestic tribunal the
delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained
mind, if he seeks permission to appear through a
legal practitioner the refusal to grant this request
would amount to denial of a reasonable request B
to defend himself and the essential principles of
natural justice would be violated .... "
30. In view of. the law laid down by this Court, we are
of the view that if any person who is or was a legal C
practitioner, including a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed
as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an
employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to
the charged employee would be unfair.
D
31. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that all the·
Departmental inquiries conducted against the appellant
were in violation of rules of natural justice. This apart as
the third inquiry report is based on extraneous facts and
first part of the charge held to be proved in memorandum E
dated 261ll March, 2010 being not the part of the charges
shown in the (third) chargesheet, the order of punishment,
including Resolution by memorandum dated 261ll March,
2010 cannot be upheld.
F
32. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside both penal
memoranda dated 22"d February, 2010 and 26th March,
2010. In effect, the appellant stands reinstated to the post
of Professor but in the facts and circumstances, we allow
only 50% of back wages (salary) to appellant for the G
intervening period i.e. from the date of his disengagement
till the date of this judgment. However, the aforesaid period
shall be treated 'on duty' for all purposes including seniority,
increment, fixation of pay, retrial benefits, etc. The
respondents are directed to pay the appellant arrears within H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A two months, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest
@ 6% from the date of this judgment.
33. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations
and directions. No costs.
B
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search