(1.) By filing the present petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the enquiry report submitted by Dr. C.B. Gupta, the Enquiry Officer, on February 14, 1996 and also the memorandum dated March 21, 1996 whereby the decision of the Executive Council to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer was communicated to the petitioner. By the said memorandum dated March 21, 1996 the petitioner was further informed that he should show cause as to why his services in terms of the decision of the Executive Council accepting the findings of the Committee holding that the petitioner was guilty of defrauding the University in the purchase of the computer for the Department of Chinese and Japanese Studies be not terminated in terms of provisions of clause 6 of the Agreement.
(2.) It is alleged by the respondents that certain complaints were received by the Vice Chancellor of the Delhi University regarding irregularities made by the petitioner in purchase of a computer. In view of the receipt of the aforesaid complaints, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Internal Audit Officer to ascertain the veracity of the aforesaid allegations. The petitioner was requested by the Internal Audit Officer to cooperate in the aforesaid enquiry as several complaints had been received from the teachers of the department regarding the purchase of the computer. It is, however, alleged that the petitioner did not cooperate with the Internal Audit Officer and, therefore, the Internal Audit Officer had to personally visit the petitioner's office on October 26, 1993 and upon such visit he could not locate the computer anywhere in the Department's office, Laboratory, Library or Teachers Room. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor appointed a Committee headed by Prof. Namwar Singh to examine whether there was a prima facie case for further probe and for any action for a full fledged investigation and enquiry. Said Prof. Namwar Singh conducted a fact finding enquiry wherein the petitioner participated. The said committee after making an enquiry submitted a report recommending that there was enough evidence on record to establish a prima facie case for a full fledged departmental enquiry. The aforesaid recommendations of Prof. Namwar Singh Committee were placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held on April 7, 1995. On the basis of the recommendations of Prof. Namwar Singh Committee, the petitioner was asked to step down from the headship of the Department of Japanese and Chinese Studies. The petitioner, however, did not respond to the aforesaid letter and, therefore, the Vice Chancellor passed orders requesting Prof. Mrs. Savitri Vishwanathan to perform the duties of the head of the department until further orders. In view of the unanimous view recorded by Prof. Namwar Singh Committee that there was a prima facie case for proper departmental enquiry, the respondent University decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The articles of charges were drawn up against the petitioner listing three charges and a statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the said charges was also sent to the petitioner. Along with the aforesaid memo of charges, lists of documents and witnesses were also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was also informed that Dr. C.B. Gupta, the former Principal of Shri Ram College of Commerce, would act as the Enquiry Officer. Dr. C.B. Gupta Committee, the enquiry authority, called on the petitioner to participate in the committee and issued letters to him for attending the proceedings held on August 31, 1995, October 27, 1995, November 3, 1995 and November 10, 1995. The petitioner neither submitted any written statement of defence nor participated in the aforesaid enquiry in spite of receipt of the aforesaid communication issued by the enquiry authority. Having no other alternative, the enquiry authority proceeded in the matter even in his absence as he did not appear in the enquiry, examined the witnesses and also perused the documents placed and thereafter submitted its report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The findings of Dr. C.B. Gupta Committee were placed before the Executive Council which accepted the aforesaid findings. In terms of the decision of the Executive Council, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on March 21, 1996. The petitioner filed a reply on April 11, 1996 asking for furnishing certain documents and informations. A letter was sent by the respondent University on April 12, 1996 to the petitioner informing him that his reply would be placed before the Executive Council on April 23, 1996 and that further he should make himself available for personal hearing in case the Executive Council so agreed. However, before any action could be taken by the Executive Council in its meeting scheduled to be held on April 23,1996 which was also required to go into his letter dated April 11, 1996 the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court alleging that the aforesaid report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the resolution of the Executive Council asking him to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated were illegal and void and are in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) When the writ petition was filed notice was issued by this Court on April 19, 1996 when an interim order was also passed by this Court permitting the Executive Council to consider the matter but directed that in case that decision is against the petitioner, the implementation of the said decision would remain stayed till the next date. The aforesaid interim order passed by this Court continued to operate by orders passed by this Court extending the same until further orders. In terms of the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, the Executive Council proceeded with the matter and on April 23, 1996 the Executive Council in its meeting gave a personal hearing to the petitioner. After considering the reply of the petitioner and the personal/verbal submission of the petitioner which was presented in the said meeting, the Executive Council resolved to confirm the earlier decision to terminate the services of the petitioner. The Executive Council, however, did not implement the said decision in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on April 19, 1996.