NISHAT SULTANA ZAIDI Vs. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner-mother has prayed for issuance of (i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashment of impugned charge-sheet dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure-1), inquiry report dated 12.03.2011 (Annexure-5), and the show cause notice dated 15.06.2010 issued by respondent no. 1 (Annexure-6); (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to pay her an interim/ad-hoc compensation of rupees ten lakhs (Rs. 10,00,000), and (iii) any other writ, order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition are that late Sahil Zaidi, then a student of B.A. LL.B. (Hon.) 3rd year 5th semester was placed under suspension pending an inquiry into an alleged incident of fight and assault between two groups of students said to have occurred on 11.10.2009. That incident was followed by another incident of exchange of abuses on 12.10.2009 inside the hostel premises of the respondent university. Late Sahil Zaidi was called upon to answer a charge sheet dated 27.10.2009 with three charges drawn against him and some other students. In order to hold Inquiry, an Inquiry Committee comprising two members, namely a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court and a retired administrative officer was constituted and entrusted with the enquiry in question. It is alleged that the only act for which petitioner's late son was purportedly charge sheeted was the act of doing a good Samaritan to save his friends namely Pallav Singh, Ankit Prakash, Anjul singh and Anurag Singh from the brutal assaults caused by another group of students on 11.10.2009 at 9.00 pm which consisted of one Ajay Singh, Praveen Yadav, Rahul Singh and Krishan Kant. It is also pointed out that again on the following day, i.e. 12.10.2009, at about 1.00 pm, the aggressors of earlier incident namely Shashank Singh, Praveen Yadav, Vishal Mishra, Ajay Singh and Krishan Kant went upstairs to assault petitioner's late son and his friends Anjul Singh, Kanishik, Pankaj and Anurag whom petitioner's late son had tried to save from assault on the previous night.

(2.) HOWEVER , the main aggressor of that incident namely Shashank Singh was taken away by the caretaker of the boys hostel of petitioner's late son and thus he and his friends were saved. In this background, petitioner's late son filed a detailed written statement of defence to three charges framed against him. It is also averred that petitioner's late son was charge sheeted concerning a fight between two groups of students by the respondent University without any complicity on his part. Petitioner's deceased son, thus, suffered a false implication in the disciplinary matter conducted not in a bonafide exercise of powers by the University authorities but in a colourable exercise of such powers alleged to be emanating from some kind of malice and ill will harboured by the University authorities against petitioner's late son. It is submitted that the University authorities had taken offence for his forthright and outspoken dealing with his teachers, although within the precincts of discipline. It is also mentioned that the University authorities developed hatred towards petitioner's late son for no fault on his part, even though the deceased had brought lots of laurels to the University in various sports events. He had earned for the University a number of trophies and medals in sports like Tennis, Swimming, Football, Volleyball and racing. Instead of appreciating his performance, for the reasons best known to the University authorities, they totally disliked him. It is also submitted that the personal animosity harboured by respondent no.3, the Vice Chancellor against petitioner's late son was so deep that he went on to deliberately insult petitioner's husband then a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High court by requiring him to attend his office along with petitioner for trivial matters through telephonic calls. Even later on also, during the course of enquiry, petitioner's husband was summoned in person by the Vice Chancellor through a Deputy Registrar by sending a communication with language as "after seeking prior appointment in order to put his point of view relating to disciplinary proceedings". The said communication was sent to petitioner's husband through Deputy Registrar of the University only to humiliate him, and moreover in complete breach of protocol and respect expected of and required to be shown to a High Court Judge. Even then, petitioner's husband showed utmost courtesy to the Vice Chancellor. There is also an averment in the petition that on more than one occasion petitioner's husband was told by the Vice Chancellor that all Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are his personal friends whom he referred to by names bereft of even the prefix of Mr. Justice. However, petitioner's husband would return without expressing any indignation much-less taking action for transgressions committed on his face, even when, he was a sitting Judge.

(3.) TRIAL . During the proceedings, the students and other persons were examined and cross examined. The witnesses who were setup for the establishment and against deceased Sahil Zaidi were Nitin Kumar, Anand Prakash, Praveen Kumar Yadav, Krishan Kant, Vishal Mishra and Ajay Singh. However, when they were cross examined by petitioner's late son Sahil Zaidi, each of them denied the complicity of petitioner's son in any incident of violence for which he was wrongfully charged at the instance of respondent no.3. Thus none of the witnesses appearing for the establishment could prove any of the complaints made against petitioner's late son which had been made the basis for drawing charges against him. Besides, in the cross examination, none of the witnesses supported any of the allegations. Thus, on the conclusion of enquiry, it was found to be a case of no evidence against petitioner's late son Sahil Zaidi on all three counts (charges). Petitioner's deceased son at the conclusion of hearing before the Inquiry Committee also submitted a written argument in support of his case. The Inquiry Committee finally in its report dated 12.03.2010 held that Charge No.1 relating to the incident dated 11.10.2009 is not proved against late Sahil Zaidi and his four companions namely Pallav Singh, Anjul Singh, Ankit Prakash and Kanishk who were found to be aggrieved while the rival group of students was held to be the aggressor. The second charge relating to the incident dated 12.10.2009 was held to be proved against petitioner's late son along with six other students namely Vishal Mishra, Shanhak Singh, Pankaj Kumar, Anurag Singh, Ankit Prakash and Anjul Singh. The 3rd charge since only related to shortage of attendance did not fall within the purview of enquiry by the Committee in the eye of law. Thus the Inquiry committee found it to be beyond the terms reference. 4. Regarding recommendations relating to punishment as submitted by the Inquiry Committee, petitioner's late son vide para 55 B(i) of the report was recommended for award of punishment of 'warning'. Based on inquiry report dated 12.03.2010 a notice dated 15.06.2010 was caused to be sent by respondent no.3 through a Deputy Registrar to petitioner's husband at his Court's address in Delhi where he is presently holding the office of President, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It was mentioned that petitioner's late son was found guilty of indiscipline regarding the incident dated 12.10.2009 and that the decision for necessary further disciplinary action is under consideration before the Competent Authority. It was also mentioned in the notice that in regard to the said disciplinary action, the Deputy Registrar had been directed to inform petitioner's husband that he may meet Vice Chancellor, respondent no.3 in his office latest by 26.06.2010 by prior appointment and put across his point of view, if any. An event sheet highlighting the events of the alleged conduct of petitioner's late son was also enclosed with the notice dated 15.06.2010 sent to petitioner's son. However, a copy of the inquiry report was not enclosed. In response to the aforesaid notice dated 15.06.2010, petitioner's husband sent a memo dated 20.06.2010 to the Deputy Registrar concerned from his residential address showing utmost courtesy in writing whereby he requested for a copy of the inquiry report dated 12.10.2009, statements of witnesses recorded by the Inquiry Committee, and two other essential documents. Since the show cause notice dated 15.06.2010 was to be answered by late Sahil Zaidi, petitioner's deceased son, he submitted a representation dated 12.07.2010 against the findings of Inquiry Committee in response to the aforesaid notice dated 15.06.2010 sent to petitioner's husband.