RAMESH KUMAR KATARIA Vs. CSK HPKV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case, as emerge from the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor (Agronomy) in the respondent University on 1.7.1988. On 1.7.1996, petitioner was promoted as an Associate Professor (Agronomy) and thereafter to the post of Professor/Principal Scientist on 27.7.2006. The next promotional post for the cadre of Professor/Principal Scientist is that of Dean/Director. At present, there are seven posts of Deans/Directors in the respondent-University. Careful perusal of the Seniority List (Annexure P-1) reveals that the petitioner is the senior-most Professor/Principal Scientist in the Department of Seed Science and Technology, as such, he was next in line to be promoted as Dean/Director in the respondent-University. However, in the year 2017, petitioner came to be served with a show cause notice dated 20.4.2017, for alleged insubordination. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he did not obey the orders of his superior i.e. Head of Department. Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, specifically stating therein that at no point of time, he disobeyed the orders of his superior and denied all the allegations in toto. However, the fact remains that the reply of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent-University. After expiry of three months, petitioner received a memorandum dated 3.8.2017 (Annexure P-2) contemplating an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter, 'Rules'), containing therein following Article of Charge:

(2.) Vide reply dated 17.8.2017(Annexure P-3), petitioner replied to the aforesaid memorandum. Whereafter, on 26.10.2017, petitioner was called for personal hearing by worthy Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, who after having heard the petitioner, assured him that no further action shall be taken against him. However, the fact remains that before an inquiry could be initiated against the petitioner, respondent vide order dated 17.8.2019 (Annexure P-4) entrusted responsibility of Associate Director Research (Agriculture) to one Shri Prem Nath Sharma (respondent No.2 herein), ignoring the petitioner, who at the relevant time was holding the post of Professor in the Department of Seed Science and Technology, which is at par with the post of Associate Director. In the month of November, 2019, petitioner came to know that Departmental proceedings initiated against him vide memorandum dated 3.8.2017 are still pending, as such, he submitted a representation dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure P-5) praying therein to disclose the status of memorandum served upon him. Since the respondent-University never responded to said communication, petitioner was compelled to file yet another representation dated 1.1.2020 (Annexure P-6), wherein petitioner, besides raising the issue of departmental inquiry pending against him, also highlighted the issue with regard to appointment of respondent No.2 as Associate Director. Petitioner claimed that since respondent No.2 is much junior to him, as per the seniority list of the Professors circulated by the competent Authority, he could not have been assigned duties of Associate Professor on seniority basis. Respondent-University, after having received aforesaid communication, issued an office order dated 8.1.2020 appointing one Shri Ashwani Kumar Basandrai, Dean, College of Agriculture, CSKSPKV as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Vide yet another order dated 8.1.2020 (Annexure P-7) one Shri Rajeev Rathour, Principal Scientist (Pl. Pathology), Department of Agriculture Biotechnology, COA, CSKHPKV, Palampur was appointed as a Presenting Officer. Being aggrieved with appointment of Inquiry Officer, petitioner filed fresh representation, stating therein that inquiry was kept pending for almost three years without knowledge of the petitioner and despite assurance given by worthy Vice-Chancellor to drop the proceedings, as such, it cannot be reopened at this stage. Petitioner also claimed before the competent Authority that as per law, inquiry, if any, should have been concluded within a period of six months from the date of framing of charge, as such order dated 8.1.2020 appointing Shri Ashwani Kumar Basandrai as Inquiry Officer, is not sustainable.

(3.) In reply to aforesaid representation, respondent-University informed the petitioner vide communication dated 7.2.2020 (Annexure P-8) that since he stood charge sheeted, he was not appointed/assigned the post of Associate Director (Annexure P-9). In response to annexure P-8, petitioner vide communication dated 19.2.2020 (Annexure P-9) alleged that for the last three years, charge sheet was purposely kept pending by the respondent-University with specific motive to give appointment to respondent No.2 as Associate Director, which action cannot be said to be valid and legal by any stretch of imagination. Since the Inquiry Officer appointed vide order dated 8.1.2020, failed to proceed with the matter, respondent-University, vide office order dated 12.3.2020, appointed one Shri Madhumeet Singh, as Inquiry Officer (Annexure P-11) but again, till date, nothing has been done by the newly appointed Inquiry Officer, as such, in the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, with the following main reliefs: