RAJUDDIN Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of appropriate writ of certiorari and mandamus for quashing the order dated 29.1.1992 passed by the respondent by which a penalty was imposed upon the petitioner after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, and it was ordered that the petitioner be reduced to the lower grade for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 31.1.1992, as also for directions to the respondent to give all consequential benefits including further promotion to the post of Assistant, etc., from the date the petitioner's juniors have been promoted along with arrears of salaries, etc.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the year 1972, the petitioner was appointed as an Attendant with the respondent/University. In 1977, he was promoted as a Junior Clerk and subsequently regularized. In January, 1986, the petitioner was promoted as a temporary Senior Clerk. On 16.7.1990, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by the respondent/University under Regulation XIII (29), (30), (31), (32) and (33) of the University for holding an inquiry against the petitioner on the ground that while functioning as Junior Clerk in the Office of the Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, he received a bribe of Rs.600/- from a scholarship holder, Miss Raj Rani Thakur, saying that this amount shall be paid to someone in the Accounts Office and that on intervention by the Accounts Officer, the sum of Rs.600/- received by the petitioner was paid back to the complainant. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet on 30.7.1990 wherein he denied the charges and requested for supply of documents. Vide Memorandum dated 25th March, 1991, the respondent intimated the petitioner that it proposed to hold an oral inquiry to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and he was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 27th March, 1991 at 2.00 P.M. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 27th March, 1991. It is claimed by the petitioner that his statement was recorded against his protest and that thereafter order of punishment was passed against him, reducing him to a lower grade for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 3.1.11992.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that the inquiry proceedings were conducted by the respondent in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and that the respondent failed to follow their own Regulation XIII (33). The said regulation is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: