BISHAMBHAR DAYAL GUPTA Vs. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dilip Gupta, who appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel have agreed that this petition may be decided at the admission stage with out calling for counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. WE, accordingly, proceed in the matter to decide the same finally at the admission stage. '

(2.) THE facts in so far as they are relevant for the purposes of decoding this writ petition are not in dispute. THE petitioner was appointed as Reade in the department of Psychology in Aligarh Muslim University (for short th University) in January, 1983. In connection with some complaints made by Miss Sunita Tandon and Miss Sunil Chauhan regarding their admission to Ph. D. course in Psychology a charge-sheet dated 17/18th September, 1986 was served upon the petitioner. He filed reply. Shri M K. Vasudevan was appointed Enquiry Officer vide order dated 5-5-87 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. THE Enquiry Officer submitted his report upon which the Executive Council issued a show cause notice dated 5-4-89 to the petitioner. THE Executive Council vide its resolution dated 16/17-5-89 communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University on 20-5 89 dismissed the petitioner from service. THE petitioner filed an appeal on 9-8-89 to the Visitor of the University. THE appellate authority without deciding the appeal itself sent it to the Executive Council of the University with the direction to decide that appeal. THE Executive Council vide resolution dated 2-11-92 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come to this Court wish the prayer that orders dated 20-5-89 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), order dated 6-3-92 fannexure-13 to the writ petition) and the order dated 2-11-92 (annexure-14 to the writ petition) be quashed and the respondents be directed by a whit of mandamus to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) IT is a common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and an appeal decided by the same authority may not really serve any fruitful purpose. The authority who embarks upon the post decisional hearing would naturally proceed with a closed mind and there Is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the appeal at such a post decisional opportunity. This is an instance of an appeal from one's own order to oneself. The Executive Council had already prejudged the facts while dismissing the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report. IT was disqualified from hearing the appeal against its own order.