JAGVEER SINGH SINDHU Vs. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE C S AZAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Principal issue that arises for consideration in this petition directed against order of removal passed by the Board of Management of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. Against petitioner an Economic Botanist (Legumes), department of Genetics and plant .Breeding, is if the order is vitiated having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and against directions of the Chancellor in reference directed against earlier order of minor punishment.

(2.) IMPORTANT also is the issue if a delinquent challenges order of punishment and the higher authority after quashing punishment directs disciplinary authority to pass fresh order could the disciplinary authority impose harsher and severer punishment on same material than what was imposed earlier. In other words can a person be made worse than what he was if he would not have challenged the order of punishment. Ancillary to these is the issue if a person who did not possess the prescribed qualifications on the date when he made application for a post but acquired it subsequently at time of interview or appointment then does bis appointment stand vitiated.

(3.) HAVING narrated the factual background the first and the main issue may be taken up. From the extract of the order of Chancellor it is clear that the University was directed to supply copies of material evidence on which reliance was placed by University and to give opportunity to petitioner to meet it. Copy of the letter sent by petitioner on 22nd August, 1984 requesting to supply material after service of charge sheet has been extracted above. But the letter was neither replied nor any copy was supplied to petitioner. In paragraph 43 and 44 of the petition it is asserted that petitioner demanded personal hearing and wanted to produce witnesses but neither any material was supplied nor petitioner was heard nor he was permitted to examine witnesses. In paragraph 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of the Supplementary affidavit it is alleged that no inquiry proceedings was held in presence of petitioner nor any evidence was recorded nor was he informed that any inquiry officer had been appointed by any communication nor he was informed of any date by inquiry officer and everything was done behind back of petitioner and the inquiry officer never informed about any proceeding. Its reply has been given in paragraphs 27, 28, 65, 72 and 73 of the counter affidavit. Relevant portion of the averments reads as under : Para 27 ; That on 10-8-1984, a charge sheet was issued by the Vice Chancellor to Dr. Sindhu, which has already been attached to the writ petition as Annexure 13. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 25-10-1984 and the University had shown him all the relevant papers and evidence. The petitioner has inspected himself personally several times in the office of the Vice Chancellor the relevant file and the papers relating to the charges contained in the charge sheet dated 10-8-84 and the petitioner was afforded all the opportunities to rebut the charges levelled against him. Para 29 : That the petitioner has given all his evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report dated 24-1-1985. Thereafter the Board of Management in its meeting dated 18-12-1985, considered the enquiry report......... Para 65 : The Vice Chancellor has appointed the Enquiry Officer (Director Administration and Monitoring of the University) on 22-11-1984 for enquiring into the allegations against the petitioner and a detailed enquiry has been held by the aforesaid enquiry officer. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry fully and he has given all the evidence etc. before the enquiry officer, who has submitted his report on 24-1-1985. Para 72 : Before the aforesaid Enquiry Officer, the petitioner appeared and participated in the enquiry and each and every paper, which is relevant and which was relied upon by the University, was made available to the petitioner. The petitioner was extended full cooperation and he inspected the same and even made copies of various papers before the enquiry officer. Para 73 : There is no violation of principle of Natural justice. The enquiry officer, of the rank of senior PCS Officer, was appointed and the charge sheet was submitted to the petitioner and all the documents and papers connected with the matter were made available to the petitioner. He was also afforded opportunity of inspection of papers and copying down the same. During the course of enquiry right from the beginning to end, the petitioner did not specify as to which particular paper or set of papers, were required by him so that University may supply. The allegations of supplementary affidavit have not been specifically replied in the supplementary counter affidavit as reply in this regard is stated to have been given in the counter affidavit.