ANWAR ALAM Vs. JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE history of this case shows that petitioner is consistently over anxious to come to the Court even before proceedings achieve finality. This I am saying so because there is yet no report of the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty or imposing any penalty upon the petitioner. It is trite that the Enquiry Officer's report may or may not be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the petitioner can be exonerated or the petitioner can be held to be guilty. Today, there is no finality to the proceedings against the petitioner in that there is as yet no order of the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges as proved against the petitioner. The issue pertains to the petitioner/charged officer fraudulently manipulating of holding of an "examination" of paper MP 1.2 (Government and Politics in West Asia) of the first semester of the M. Phil course of the Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia with regard to one Ms. Versha Tomar. There is also a charge against the petitioner of wrongly seeking to influence and pressurize the faculty members of the Centre for West Asian Studies with respect to the case of Ms. Versha Tomar.

(2.) THE present petitioner after issuing of the charge sheet had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5254/2012 seeking to challenge Statute 37 of Jamia Milia Islamia under the caption (Removal of Teachers). It was urged by the petitioner that the Statute in question empowers Jamia Milia Islamia to remove a teacher etc on the grounds of misconduct, which would mean, when even, if a misconduct is minor the only penalty envisaged would be that of removal from removal from service irrespective of the type of infraction. This challenge was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.9.2012. It may be noted that the Division Bench, after dismissing the challenge laid to Statute 37 of Jamia Milia Islamia Act, 1988, listed the matter before the learned Single Judge on 10.9.2012. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 10.9.2012 by making the following observations in paras 5 and 6 of the order dated 10.9.2012, which read as under: -

(3.) THE petitioner, at this stage, has rushed to the Court claiming that the Enquiry Officer ought to have allowed the petitioner to lead expert evidence in the form of hand writing expert's report.