LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-364

ABID AKHTAR Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA AND ORS.

Decided On November 08, 2013
Abid Akhtar Appellant
V/S
Jamia Millia Islamia And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner impugns the order dated 5.10.1999 whereby the petitioner has been imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement. In this case I may note that petitioner did not appear in the proceedings before the enquiry officer. Several adjournments were granted and several notices were issued to the petitioner but to no avail. Even after petitioner stopped appearing, proceedings sheet as also the evidence recorded was sent to him. Even the summary of arguments on behalf of the Presenting Officer of the department was sent to the petitioner. Petitioner did not lead his evidence and did not stand in the witness box for being cross -examined in support of his defence. A detailed report dated 13.7.1999 has been given by the enquiry officer running into 33 pages holding the petitioner guilty of charges.

(2.) EVEN in a case where both the parties lead evidence, the scope of interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and this Court only interferes if there is perversity in the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities or violations of principles of natural justice or violation of the rules/law of the organization. In a case where a person does not appear in the departmental proceedings and leads no evidence, the scope of the Court to examine the challenge will be further restricted and there cannot be challenge on merits to the report of the enquiry officer because that challenge on merits has to be by means of participation in the enquiry proceedings and which opportunity petitioner in spite of notice did not utilize. At this stage, let me reproduce the relevant portion of the enquiry officer's report showing contumacious attitude of the petitioner in not appearing in the departmental proceedings. The relevant portion of the enquiry officer's report reads as under: -

(3.) BEFORE me on behalf of the petitioner three grounds have been urged to challenge the impugned order dated 5.10.1999: -