Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8224 OF 2012

PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA     …APPELLANT

VERSUS      

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.     …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against  

the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the High  

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2547 of  

2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the  

writ petition, upheld Para 6 of the Annexure to Ordinance XI  

of University of Delhi and refused to interfere with the show  

cause notice issued on the appellant and the memorandum(s) by  

which the appellant was punished and removed from the service  

of the Delhi University.  

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-

The appellant was a Professor in the University of Delhi  

(hereinafter referred to as the, ‘University’).  According to  

the  appellant  while  serving  in  the  University  he  wrote  a  

letter dated 1st December, 1990 addressed to the Union Minister  

of State for Welfare requesting sanction of Rs.5 crores for  

starting  Dr.  B.R.  Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical  Research  

1

Page 2

(hereinafter referred to as the, ‘ACBR’).  In response to the  

said letter, office of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Centenary Celebration  

under Ministry of Welfare by letter dated 22nd January, 1991  

invited the appellant to submit a detailed project report for  

the establishment of ACBR commemorating birth centenary of Dr.  

B.R. Ambedkar. On 15th March, 1991, the University forwarded  

the proposal submitted by the appellant for establishment of  

ACBR in the University and necessary certificate was given to  

the  Government  of  India  by  the  University,  especially  in  

respect  of  autonomy  of  the  ACBR.   The  Central  Government  

accepted the proposal and the Prime Minister laid down the  

foundation  stone  of  ACBR.   The  Executive  Council  of  the  

University vide Resolution dated 13th April, 1991 approved the  

project proposal for setting up ACBR and appointed a Committee  

to finalize the academic plan and ordinances.  Ordinance XX of  

the University relates to Colleges and Institutions maintained  

by  the  University  including  ACBR.  A  Committee  under  the  

Chairmanship  of  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University  in  its  

meeting held on 4th November, 1991 recommended the appellant’s  

name to function as Director till a regular appointment is  

made. The Academic Council by its decision dated 20th December,  

1991 approved the said recommendation and further recommended  

the Executive Council to appoint the appellant as Director  

till a regular appointment is made. The Executive Council vide  

its Resolution No.243 (1) dated 15th February, 1992 accepted  

and  approved  the  recommendations  of  the  Academic  Council.  

Pursuant to the said Resolution, the Assistant Registrar (E-

2

Page 3

NT)  issued  a  letter  dated  30th May,  1995  informing  the  

appellant  about  the  decision  of  the  Vice  Chancellor,  

appointing  him  as  the  Director  of  ACBR  till  a  regular  

appointment is made to the said post.   

2.1)  The appellant was already functioning as Professor in  the Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi. He was Joint  

Proctor in the University between 1996 and 1999 and during  

this period he was a Visiting Scientist at the Rockefeller  

University,  Cornell  University  -  Medical  College,  Oxford  

University and several other Universities and institutes. The  

appellant  was  also  functioning  as  Chairman  of  Board  of  

Research  Studies,  Faculty  of  Science  and  Chairman  of  

Publication Advisory Committee, University of Delhi during the  

said period.   

2.2) Further case of the appellant is that he was appointed as  Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in March, 1999  

and the same was informed to respondent no.3-Governing Body of  

ACBR. According to appellant, the Governing Body resolved that  

the  appellant  will  continue  as  Director  even  after  taking  

charge  as  the  Vice  Chancellor  in  another  University  i.e.  

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. On 30th July,  

1999, the Chairman of the Governing Body, ACBR informed the  

Vice Chancellor of the University about the said decision.   

2.3)  On  20th September,  1999,  the  Registrar  of  University  notified that the Vice Chancellor had appointed Professor Vani  

Brahmachari  as  Officiating  Director,  ACBR  during  the  leave  

3

Page 4

period of the appellant and specified that the appellant will  

continue to provide Academic Leadership to the ACBR.  

2.4) On 6th October, 2000, respondent no.3 resolved that the  appellant should continue to provide help and guidance, though  

he was functioning as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University.  

However, it was specified that in absence of the appellant,  

Dr. Vani Brahmachari will look after the day to day work of  

the  office.  Respondent  no.3-Governing  Body,  ACBR  vide  its  

resolution no.6-74 dated 6th October, 2000 resolved to get the  

ACBR registered under Societies Act and then to approach the  

UGC  and  Government  of  India  for  declaring  the  ACBR  as  

Institute of National importance. It was decided to prepare a  

draft and circulate to the members of the Governing Body to  

discuss the matter in the next meeting.   

2.5)  Further case of the appellant is that respondent no.3- Governing  Body  of  ACBR  vide  its  resolution  dated  15th  

September,  2001 considered  and  approved  the  draft  of  Memorandum of Association of ACBR which was forwarded to the  

University for information and necessary action.  

2.6) In February, 2005, a Search Committee for selection for  the post of Vice Chancellor in University was constituted. The  

appellant as well as respondent no.2-Professor Deepak Pental  

were candidates whose names were initially short listed by the  

Search Committee.  In the meantime, the appellant was removed  

from  the  post  of  Vice  Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University,  

4

Page 5

Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh by order dated 16th July, 2005 fifteen  

days prior to the expiry of his tenure.   

2.7) The  aforesaid  order  of  removal  was  challenged  by  the  appellant by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.51370  

of  2005  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad.  

Prof. Deepak Pental was officiating as Pro-Vice Chancellor,  

University  of  Delhi  during  that  time.  According  to  the  

appellant, the said officiating Pro-Vice-Chancellor was not in  

the office on 18th July, 2005 and the said fact came to his  

knowledge when he contacted the officiating Vice Chancellor to  

inform him about his removal from the Bundelkhand University.  The appellant also informed the same to the Head, Department  

of Chemistry; Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Delhi;  

Chairman,  Governing  Body,  ACBR  and  Dy.  Registrar,  ACBR.  

Further, according to the appellant, on the same day i.e. on  

18th July, 2005, he gave his joining report to the University  

of Delhi but it was not accepted.  The appellant came to know  

the  same  from  the  Head  of  Chemistry  Department  who  had  

received  a  letter  from  the  Registrar,  Delhi  University  

regarding removal of the appellant from Bundelkhand University  

and hence he was informed that his joining would be subject to  

the clearance from the Chancellor of Bundelkhand University.  

The  Registrar,  University  of  Delhi  wrote  letters  to  the  

Commissioner  of  Jhansi,  who  was  acting  Vice  Chancellor  of  

Bundelkhand  University  u/s  12(10)  of  the  U.P.  State  

Universities  Act,  1973,  the  Principal  Secretary  to  the  

Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University,  

5

Page 6

Jhansi) and the Registrar, Bundelkhand University requesting  

them to supply information regarding curtailment of the tenure  

of the appellant. The Principal Secretary to the Governor of  

Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University) replied to  

the letter on 26th July, 2005 giving details regarding removal  

of the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand  

University. On 28th July, 2005, the Principal Secretary to the  

Governor of Uttar Pradesh (Chancellor, Bundelkhand University)  

further informed the Registrar, University of Delhi that as  

per  the  directions  of  the  High  Court,  the  appellant  stood  

relieved from 16th July, 2005 and subsequently, the appellant  

was also informed vide letter dated 8th August, 2005 that since  

he was relieved from 16th July, 2005 no further action was  

required from Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University. The  

Registrar,  Bundelkhand  University  also  replied  to  the  

Registrar, University of Delhi on 2nd August, 2005 informing  

him regarding allegation against the appellant. The Secretary,  UGC  addressed  a  letter  to  Professor  Deepak  Pental  on  4th  

August, 2005 informing him about removal of appellant from  

Bundelkhand  University  with  copy  to  the  Chancellor  for  

information and necessary action. On 4th August, 2005 a note  

was endorsed by Prof. Deepak Pental on the letter of UGC to  

the effect that “summary of the charges against Prof. Ramesh  

Chandra needs to be made”.  According to the appellant, such  

note  was  given  by  Prof.  Deepak  Pental  with  a  mala  fide  

intention of involving appellant in some controversy so that  

his  name  would  be  dropped  from  the  list  of  the  Search  

6

Page 7

Committee  as  contender  for  the  post  of  Vice  Chancellor,  

University of Delhi.  The name of the appellant was dropped  

and on 1st September, 2005, Prof. Deepak Pental was appointed  

as Vice Chancellor of University of Delhi.

2.8) The appellant has alleged mala fide against Dr. Deepak  Pental  and  has  taken  plea  that  Prof.  Pental  did  not  stop  

harassing the appellant even thereafter.  He further alleged  that after his removal from the Bundelkhand University, his  

joining  to  Delhi  University  was  accepted  w.e.f.  18th July,  

2005. He also placed reliance on decision of Governing Body of  

ACBR wherein it was recorded that the appellant would continue  

to  function  as  Acting  Director  (Hony.),  ACBR.   The  said  

resolution of the Governing Body was forwarded to the Vice  

Chancellor of the University of Delhi.  The Chairman of the  

Governing Body, ACBR wrote a letter on 23rd September, 2005 to  

the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University regarding its stand on  

the position of the appellant in ACBR.  The Executive Council  

of the University of Delhi passed a resolution no.132 on 17th  

October, 2005 that the appellant will not be allowed to hold  

any administrative position in Delhi University henceforth and  

resolved to issue  a show cause notice to the appellant for  

(a)  suppressing  information  with  regard  to  allegation  on  

account  of  which  he  was  removed  from  the  post  of  Vice-

Chancellor University at the time of his premature return to  

Delhi University and (b) unauthorisedly assuming the office of  

the  Director,   ACBR,  Delhi  University  for  the  period  from  

18.7.2005  to  24.7.2005  in  contravention  of  the  statutory  

7

Page 8

provisions of the University.  It was also resolved that the  

decision, if any, taken by or at the instance of the appellant  

while unauthorisedly occupying the post of the Director, ACBR,  

or thereafter, be treated as null and void.

2.9)  On 2nd November, 2005 a memorandum was issued to the  appellant containing the allegations set out in the Resolution  

dated  17th October, 2005  and calling  upon the  appellant to  

submit his explanation.

2.10)  The appellant submitted his reply on 12th December,  2005 and requested for supply of certain documents. According  

to him, the documents were not supplied to him.   

2.11) Further case of the appellant is that the Governing Body  of  ACBR  after  considering  all  the  communications  from  the  

Registrar,  University  of  Delhi  and  the  Executive  Council  

Resolution  No.132  dated  17th October,  2005  reiterated  its  

earlier decision authorizing the appellant to act as Director  

of the ACBR and to take necessary decisions in that capacity  

until a regular appointment is made.  The Governing Body of  

ACBR  further  authorized  the  Chairman  and  the  Director  to  

complete all formalities for converting it into an autonomous  

institution  so  that  ACBR  could  be  converted  to  a  deemed  

University and an institution of national importance by the  

next academic session.

2.12)  On 2nd January, 2006 the Registrar, University of Delhi  issued  an  office  order  that  consequent  upon  Dr.  Vani  

Brahmachari proceeding on leave Dr. Daman Saluja would look  

8

Page 9

after the day to day work of the office of Director, ACBR  

until further orders. On 25th January, 2006 the Registrar of  

the  University  forwarded  another  memorandum  calling  upon  

appellant’s explanation w.r.t. memorandum dated 2nd November,  

2005 within fifteen days.  The appellant submitted his final  

reply on 8th February, 2006.  

2.13)  It appears that the appellant in the meantime moved an  appeal before the Executive Council against Resolution dated  

17th October, 2005 but no decision appears to have been taken.  

The Governing Body of ACBR continued with its efforts towards  

registration  of the  Centre as  a Society.  On 5th September,  

2006, the appellant was instructed by the Governing Body to  

file  documents  for  the  registration  of  the  ACBR  with  the  

Registrar,  Societies,  Govt.  of  NCT,  to  file  an  approved  

affidavit stating that the ACBR is the legal allottee and is  

in  possession  of  the  property/premises  of  the  old  USIC  

Building  Delhi  University  Campus,  Delhi  and  ACBR  have  no  

objection if the registered office of the Society is situated  

in the said premises.   

2.14)  The appellant earlier moved before the High Court in  Writ Petition No.16000 of 2006 challenging the Resolution of  

Executive Council dated 17th October, 2005. Allegation of bias  

was made against Prof. Deepak Pental therein.   

2.15)  On 21st March, 2007 Executive Council of the University  passed a resolution to appoint a retired High Court Judge to  

hold an inquiry about allegation against the appellant and  

9

Page 10

pending the inquiry to suspend the appellant. A memorandum  

dated 22nd March, 2007 was issued by the University placing the  

appellant  under  suspension  and  debarring  his  entry  in  the  

premises of the University.   

2.16)  Justice ‘X’ – a retired Judge of the High Court was  appointed to inquire into the allegation against the appellant  

and vide letter dated 23rd May, 2007 he informed the appellant  

of his appointment and called him for the hearing on 4th June,  

2007.  The appellant moved before the High Court by filing  

writ  petition  praying  for  stay  of  all  further  proceedings  

against him.   

2.17)  In the meantime, the High Court of Allahabad vide its  judgment and order dated 11th June, 2007 in Civil Misc. Writ  

Petition No.51370 of 2005 quashed the order dated 16th July,  

2007 passed by the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi  

regarding the removal of the appellant from the post of Vice  

Chancellor and held that the removal order was contrary to the  

provisions of the UP State Universities Act, 1973.  

2.18) The aforesaid fact was intimated to the Vice Chancellor  of University of Delhi on 16th June, 2007 with a request to  

withdraw  the  resolutions  and  memorandum  passed  against  the  

appellant.  

2.19)  A fresh memorandum was issued by the University on 27th  

August,  2007  alleging  that  the  appellant  has  misused  the  

telephones of the ACBR during the period 1999-2005 though he  

was  not  functioning  as  Director  during  the  said  period.  

10

Page 11

However,  the  Inquiry  Officer  recorded  that  in  view  of  the  

discussions  and  reply  submitted  none  of  the  charges  were  

proved and the appellant was absolved of the charges.  

2.20) Another memorandum was issued by the University on 16th  

October,  2007  imputing  charges  of  misconduct  against  the  

appellant and the appellant was asked to submit his written  

explanation to the said memorandum within fifteen days.  

2.21)  The  writ  petition  being  W.P.C.  No.16000  of  2006  preferred by the appellant challenging the Resolution dated  

17th October, 205 was dismissed on 11th April, 2008. In the  

meantime, the appellant was informed by Justice ‘X’ Inquiry  

Officer vide letter dated 5th May, 2008 that another inquiry  

was  being  initiated  in  respect  of  memorandum  dated  16th  

October, 2007 and asked the appellant to take part in the  

inquiry.  In  the  meantime,  the  prayer  of  the  appellant  for  

review  of  the  order  of  suspension  was  also  rejected.  

Therefore, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.4436 of 2008  

challenging  the  resolution  dated  21st March,  2007  and  

memorandum  dated  22nd March,  2007.  The  appellant  being  

aggrieved  by  the  order  of  learned  Single  Judge  in  W.P.C.  

No.16000 of 2006 preferred LPA No.229 of 2008.  The said LPA  

No.229 of 2008 was heard along with Writ Petition No.4436 of  

2008  and  both  were  dismissed  by  the  High  Court  by  common  

judgment dated 21st May, 2009.   

2.22)  The  appellant  challenged  the  aforesaid  judgment  by  filing the Special Leave Petition Nos.13753 and 14150 of 2009  

11

Page 12

before this Court.  In the said case the appellant alleged  

bias against the Vice Chancellor Prof. Deepak Pental in the  

matter of issuance of the charge sheet.  This Court initially  

vide order dated 18th September, 2009 directed the respondent  

to  conclude  the  inquiry  against  the  appellant  within  two  

months. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry pursuant to  

Memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 and submitted his report on  

21st October, 2009.  A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded  

to the appellant.  According to the appellant, Inquiry Officer  

neither allowed oral evidences nor supplied relevant documents  

sought by him. The appellant submitted his reply to the said  

report on 28th January, 2010.  

2.23) On 19th December, 2009 the Inquiry Officer concluded the  inquiry pursuant to memorandum dated 27th August, 2007 and 16th  

October,  2007  and  submitted  his  reports,  both  dated  23rd  

February, 2010.  A copy of the inquiry report pursuant to  

memorandum  dated  16th October,  2007  was  forwarded  to  the  

appellant asking him to submit his reply within twenty one  

days.  The appellant requested the Registrar, University of  

Delhi to supply certain documents which were referred to by  

the Inquiry Officer and submitted interim reply on 18th March,  

2010.  Subsequently,  the  Executive  Council  passed  Resolution  

No.281 dated 25th March, 2010 disengaging the appellant from  

the  services  with  immediate  effect  and  subsequently  a  

memorandum  dated  26th March,  2010  was  issued  to  the  said  

effect.  The  aforesaid  decision  was  communicated  to  the  

appellant by the Registrar.  

12

Page 13

2.24) This  Court  on  5th April,  2010  dismissed  the  SLP(C)  Nos.13753 of 2009 and 14150 of 2009 filed by the appellant  

challenging the High Court order dated 21st May, 2009 in LPA  

No.229 of 2008 but granted the liberty to the appellant to  

challenge the punitive orders. The appellant was permitted to  

take all the pleas taken in the SLP including the challenge to  

the  validity  and  propriety  of  the  inquiry  proceedings  

conducted by the University of Delhi. Pursuant to the said  

order,  the  appellant  filed  Writ  Petition  No.2547  of  2010  

before  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  at  New  Delhi  which  was  

dismissed by impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there  was illegality and unfairness in the initiation and conduct of  

inquiry in regard to the allegations which led to the removal  

of  appellant.  It  was  also  submitted  that  the  Chancellor  

(Bundelkhand University) has not written to Delhi University  

suggesting action to be taken against the appellant. Despite  

the  same,  information  regarding  contents  of  charges  was  

solicited unilaterally by the Registrar of Delhi University  

based  on  newspaper  reports  and  the  communication  dated  4th  

August,  2005  sent  by  the  UGC  to  the  Vice  Chancellor  of  

University.  Learned counsel further contended that in the  

absence  of  Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University  suggesting  

action against the appellant, the UGC need not have, even sent  

the above communication.   

However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted as  

it  was  always  open  to  the  competent  authority  to  initiate  

13

Page 14

departmental proceeding against its employee, with regard to  

any  misconduct  or  dereliction  of  duty  if  found  during  

performance  of  duty  while  posted  in  the  office  or  on  

deputation.  In the present case,  it was well within the  

jurisdiction of the university to initiate such a departmental  

inquiry when it is noticed that its employee was prematurely  

removed from an office to which he was deputed to on account  

of certain charges against him.   

4. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that  none of the memoranda relating to disciplinary action were  

ever placed before the Executive Council, therefore, memoranda  

cannot  be  said  to  be  charges  or  allegations  considered  or  

approved by the Executive Council (Disciplinary Authority).  

The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of  

the stand taken by the University and the material on record.  

The counsel for the respondents was directed to produce  

the original record relating to all the proceedings/memoranda,  

all articles of charges including the office note and inquiry  

report. However, only the record relating to memorandum dated  

16th October,  2007  has  been  provided.  We  have  perused  the  

original  record  produced  by  the  respondents  and  find  no  

illegality  in  the  manner  of  initiation  of  departmental  

proceeding as the same was initiated as per Executive Council  

Resolution No. 188 dated 21st March, 2007.  

5. It was further submitted that the appellant could not  file the proper reply to all the three memoranda due to non  

14

Page 15

supply  of  documents  sought  by  him  towards  submitting  an  

effective reply.  However, such submission cannot be accepted  

in absence of specific pleading as to which were the documents  

sought for but not supplied by the respondents and how they  

were connected with the charges leveled against the appellant.  

6. Another  ground  taken  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant was that there were illegalities in the conduct of  

the inquiry.  According to him the appellant requested the  

assistance of a legal practitioner as the presenting officer  

as well as the Inquiry Officer was legally qualified person  

regularly  engaged  in  disciplinary  proceedings  but  the  said  

request  was  declined.  It  was  further  submitted  that  the  

appellant was not given opportunity for examination of witness  

and there was no legal evidence before the Inquiry Officer to  

bring home the charges.  

We have gone through the inquiry report(s) submitted by  

the  Inquiry  Officer  and  other  records.  The  aforesaid  

submission  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  will  be  

discussed at an appropriate stage.

7. With  regard  to  appellant’s  allegation  of  mala  fide  against  Prof.  Deepak  Pental,  it  was  rightly  contented  on  

behalf of the respondents that in view of earlier decision of  

this  Court  in  special  leave  petition  preferred  by  the  

appellant and in absence of any specific evidence, plea of  

mala fide cannot be raised.  

15

Page 16

8.  Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that  the service of the appellant was terminated without providing  

any  notice  as  provided  for  in  para  6  of  the  Annexure  to  

Ordinance XI which reads as follows:-

“6.(1)Notwithstanding  anything  hereinbefore  contained, the Executive Council of the University  shall  be  entitled  summarily  to  determine  the  engagement  of  the  teacher  on  the  ground  of  misconduct  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  hereinafter set forth. (2)  The  Vice-Chancellor  may,  when  he  deems  it  necessary, suspend the teacher on the ground of  misconduct.   When  he  suspends  the  teacher,  he  shall  report  it  to  the  next  meeting  of  the  Executive Council. (3) The Executive Council shall investigate all  matters  reported  to  it  by  the  Vice-Chancellor  about the misconduct of the teacher whether he has  been suspended or not.  The Executive Council may  appoint a Committee for the purpose. The teacher  shall  be  notified  in  writing  of  the  charges  against him and shall be given not less than three  weeks’ time to submit his explanation in writing. The Executive Council or the Committee may hear  the  teacher  and  take  such  evidence  as  it  may  consider  necessary.  The  Executive  Council  may  determine the engagement of the teacher where it  deems that the misconduct of the teacher deserves  to  be  dealt  within  that  manner,  after  it  has  considered the explanation and the evidence, if  any, and/or the report of the Committee, if one  has been appointed. (4) Where the termination of the service on the  ground of misconduct is after suspension by the  Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, the termination of  service may be from the date of suspension, if the  Executive Council so directs.”  

9. In the present case, as noticed above, detailed procedure  is  followed  in  terms  of  said  provision.  The  appellant  was  

suspended by the Vice-Chancellor on the ground of misconduct.  

Notice was served upon the appellant and the Executive Council  

16

Page 17

resolved  to  conduct  an  inquiry  giving  opportunity  to  the  

appellant to appear before the inquiry officer.  Disciplinary  

authority  terminated  the  service  of  the  appellant  after  

following  all  the  due  procedures.  Therefore,  the  said  

submission as advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be  

accepted.  

10.  Before the High Court and this Court, one of the pleas  taken was that the charges as shown in the memoranda do not  

constitute  any  misconduct.  The  High  Court  observed  that  

misconduct though not defined in the Act or in Ordinance XI or  

in  the  Annexure  thereto,  is  a  well  understood  term  and  

paragraph  6  of  Ordinance  XI  cannot  be  held  to  be  bad  and  

liable to be struck down merely for the reason of misconduct  

having not been defined.  

11. On behalf of appellant, it was further contended that the  departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of rules of  

natural  justice  and  extraneous  matters  were  taken  into  

consideration  to  hold  the  appellant  guilty.  But  such  

submission  was  disputed  by  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the  

university.

12. Before dealing with rival contentions made by the learned  counsel for the parties, we deem it proper to deal with the  

chargesheet  –  procedure  followed  in  the  departmental  

proceedings and order of punishment.

17

Page 18

A)  1st  Chargesheet  -  memorandum  dated  2  nd   November,  2005   The  charges  levelled  against  the  appellant  can  be  

summarized as follows:

(i) The appellant wilfully suppressed the material  fact that the appellant was removed from the post  of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi  before the completion of term of his deputation, to  mislead the University.   

(ii) The appellant wrote letter dated 8th August,  2005 to the Vice Chancellor in which he signed as  Founder Director of ACBR knowing well that the term  ‘Founder  Director’  gave  a  misleading  impression  that he was the founder and was continuing as its  Director. Further there is no such post as Founder  Director

(iii)  He  has  written  other  letters  that  gives  misleading impression about his status.

Before  dealing  with  the  correctness  of  the  above  

allegations, we would like to discuss the background events  

which took place prior to the issuance of the said memorandum.  

13. The Executive Council of the University of Delhi by its  

Resolution dated 17th October, 2005 first decided to punish the  

appellant  for  his  alleged  acts  and  to  issue  a  show-cause  

notice to the appellant. This is apparent from the Resolution  

No.132 dated 17th October, 2005 which reads as follows:

“132. The  Executive  Council  considered  letters  received  from  (a)  the  Principal  Secretary  to  the  Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh  dated  26.7.2005,  (b)  the  Registrar,  Bundelkhand University, Jhansi dated 2.8.2005,  and  (c)  the  Joint  Secretary,  UGC  dated  4.8.2005  forwarding  therewith  a  copy  of  the  order  of  the   Chancellor  of  Bundelkhand  

18

Page 19

University dated 16.7.2005 indicating removal  of Prof. Ramesh Chandra from the post of the  Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University. After  due  deliberations  on  the  above  mentioned  letters, the  Council resolved that:

(i) Prof. Ramesh Chandra be not allowed to  hold  any  administrative  position  in  Delhi University henceforth:

(ii) A show cause notice be issued to Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  for  (a  suppressing  information with regard to allegation on  account of which he was removed from the  post  of  Vice-Chancellor  University  at  the  time  of  his  premature  return  to  Delhi University and (b) unauthorisedly  assuming  the  office  of  the  Director,  Dr.  B.R.  Ambedkar  Centre   for   Bio- medical Research,  Delhi University for  the period from 18.7.2005 to 24.7.2005  in  contravention  of  the  statutory  provisions of the University; and  

(iii)The decision, if any, taken by or at  the  instance  of  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra,  while unauthorisedly occupying the post  of  the  Director,  Dr.  B.R.  Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical  Research,  or  thereafter,  be  treated  as  null  and  void."

It is only after such decision to punish the appellant  

the  formal  chargesheet  was  issued  by  memorandum  dated  2nd  

November, 2005 as quoted hereunder:

“UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

No. Estab. V(T)/2005/2083

November 2, 2005.

MEMORANDUM

Whereas  it  is  noted  that  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra,  Department  of  Chemistry,  vide  his  letter  dated  18thJuly,  2005  addressed  to  the  Vice-Chancellor conveyed that after completing  his  tenure  as  Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University, he had returned back and reported  for  duty  as  Professor  in  the  Department  of  Chemistry  with  effect  from  18.7.2005  by  this  statement.  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  willfully  suppressed  the  material  fact  that  he  was  removed  from  the  post  of  Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand University before the completion of  

19

Page 20

the  term  of  his  deputation,  to  mislead  the  University authority.

And  whereas  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra,   on  reporting  for  duty  in  the  University,  unauthorisedly tried to join as Director, ACBR  as  is  evident  from  the  notification  No.  ACBR/05/743  dated  18.7.2005  issued  by  the  Deputy Registrar, ACBR which stated that Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  had  joined  back  as  fulltime  Director of ACBR in the afternoon of 18.7.2005  after completing the tenure as Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University,   Jhansi.    This  notification  (a)  conveyed  a  misleading  impression  that  he  had  joined  there  after  completion  of  tenure  as  Vice-Chancellor  of  Bundelkhand University whereas he was actually  removed from the post on charges of abuse of  power before completion of his tenure; and (b)  misleadingly  referred  to  Establ.  V(T)/99/ACBR/35657 dated 20th September, 1999 to  wrongly convey that as per this order he could  join  as  full-time  Director.   The  Order  No.Estab.  (T)V/99/ACBR/35657  dated  20.9.1999  deals  with  appointment  of  Prof.  Vani  Brahamchari  as  officiating  Director  and  specified  the  period  of  her  office  as  the  period during the leave of Prof. Ramesh Chandra  and  merely  permitted  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  to  provide  academic  leadership  to  ACBR.   This  arrangement  at  that  point   of   time   and  consequently ATTEMPT OF Prof. Ramesh Chandra to  join as Director of ACBR was ultra vires,  and  therefore, null and void ab initio. Then at the  instance  of  this  University’s  letter  dated  19.7.2005 clarified that the notification for  Prof.   Ramesh  Chandra’s  joining  as  Director  stands withdrawn:

And  whereas  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  wrote  a  letter dated 8.8.2005 to the Vice-Chancellor,  in which he signed as Founder Director,  ACBR,  knowing well that the term ‘founder director’  gave a misleading impression that he was the  ‘founder  director  of  the  Centre  or  was  the  founder  and  was  continuing  as  its  Director.  When  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  was  placed  in  additional charge of the post of Director of  ACBR  vide  letter  No.  Estab.III/BRAC/95  dated  30.5.2005, his substantive post was that of a  professor of Chemistry in the University.  All  incumbent moves away from his substantive post  on deputation/EOL.  Further, there is no such  post as founder director.   Therefore, signing  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Vice-Chancellor  on  8.8.2005  as  founder  director  ;was  clearly  to  give a misleading impression about its position  in ACBR which  besides being non-existent, was  neither  legally  sustainable  nor  

20

Page 21

administratively  proper  because  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  was  appointed  in  the  Chemistry  Department   of  the  Delhi  University  and  not  appointed/deputed to ACBR as Professor;

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had further  written letters dated 9.9.2005 and  26.9.2005  on the letter pad of ACBR signing as Director  which seeks to convey a misleading impression  about his status.  He wrote to the Chairman of  the  Governing Body, ACBR vide his letter dated  30.8.2005.   In which he had referred to some  decisions of the governing body to resume as  Director of ACBR.  This  act  of  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra tantamount to seeking perpetuation of  the  same  misleading  impression  as  indicated  above.

And whereas the University had clarified the  position with regard to the post        of  Director,   ACBR   vide    its   letter   no.  SPA/R2005/2007  dated  29.8.2005   addressed  to  the Chairman of the Governing body of ACBR with  copy  to  the  officiating  Director  of  ACBR  in  which it was clearly stated that there was no  provision of retaining lien on the additional  charge and that Prof. Vani Brahmachari continue  to be the officiating  Director until a regular  director was appointed.

And  whereas  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra’s  unauthorized  and  irregular  attempts  of  usurpation  to  the  post  of  Director  ACBR  tantamount  to  creation  of  false  records  and  tampering with other records of ACBR which is a  serious misconduct on his part.

And whereas the above acts of Prof. Ramesh  Chandra  on  irregularly  insisting  on  his  position as additional charge of the  Director  in  the  ACBR  without  having  undergone  the  process of selection prescribed in clauses 4 of  sub-heading 6 on ACBR  contained in Ordinance  XX  tantamount  to  gross  misconduct  within  the  meaning of clause 6 of Annexure to Ordinance XI  of the University.

And  whereas  some  of  the  examples  of  misconduct on the part of Prof. Ramesh Chandra,  particularly, the suppression of facts of his  removal  from  the  post  of  Vice  Chancellor  of  Bundelkhand  University  to  convey  misleading  impression that he repatriated from Bundelkhand  University after completing his tenure and the  unauthorized claim about directorship of ACBR  were discussed by the Executive Council in its  meeting on 17th October, 2005 and the Executive  Council decided that his explanation be called  

21

Page 22

for  his  above  mentioned  acts  of  serious  misconduct;

Now,   therefore, Prof. Ramesh Chandra is  hereby  directed  to  submit  in  writing  an  explanation to this memorandum within 15 days  of its date of issue,  failing which it shall  be presumed that he has no explanation to offer  and the matter shall be placed before EC for  consideration/action in accordance with Clause  6 of Ordinance XI of the University of Delhi.

Registrar

Prof. Ramesh Chandra Department of Chemistry University of Delhi Delhi.”

14. The  retired  Judge  of  Delhi  High  Court,  Justice  ‘X’,  

Inquiry Officer, by the report dated 24th November, 2009 held  

as follows:

“For  all  these  reasons,  I  am  of  the  opinion that the charges against the delinquent  that he had concealed the fact of his removal  from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand  University  with  a  view  to  mislead  the  University  and  that  despite  his  not  being  Director  of  ACBR,  he  continued  to  describe  himself as Founder Director or Director, ACBR  with a view to give a misleading impression,  stand proved.

‘X’ Dated: 24.11.2009       Inquiry Officer

//TRUE COPY//”

Thereafter the formal order of punishment was issued by  

memorandum dated 22nd February, 2010 communicating displeasure  

of the Executive Council, holding the act of the appellant to  

be unbecoming of a teacher of the University and prohibiting  

the appellant from being associated with any affairs of ACBR  

in any capacity whatsoever. The relevant portion of the said  

memorandum reads as follows:

22

Page 23

“And,  therefore,  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  (under suspension) is hereby communicated  the displeasure of the Executive Council  and  that  the  act  is  unbecoming  of  a  teacher  of  the  University.  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  (under  suspension)  is  further  communicated the decision of the Executive  Council that he shall not be associated  with any affairs of the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical  Research  in  any  capacity whatsoever and that he shall not  be  considered  for  any  administrative  position in the University. Prof. Ramesh  Chandra  shall  continue  to  be  under  suspension till further orders.”

From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the respondent  

first  decided  to  punish  the  appellant  and  only  thereafter  

memorandum   of  charges  was  framed,  show-cause  notice  was  

issued and inquiry was conducted, just to give it a colour of  

legal procedure.

15.  There  is  nothing  on  the  record  to  suggest  that  the  appellant ‘wilfully’ suppressed the material fact that he was  removed  from  service  before  completion  of  term  of  his  

deputation to mislead the respondents. It is true that the  

appellant  in  normal  course  should  have  informed  the  Delhi  

University before rejoining that he has been removed from the  

post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi before  

the completion of his deputation period.  Such action can be  

termed to be “dereliction of duty” but cannot be held to be  

misconduct  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  the  appellant  

permanently from appointment to the post of Director, ACBR.  

16.  It is not in dispute that the appellant was the First  Director of the ACBR. The same was also accepted by the Delhi  

University  in  its  memorandum  dated  2nd November,  2005.  

23

Page 24

Therefore,  in  his  letter-head  he  has  shown  him  as  Founder  

Director of ACBR, that cannot be said to be against the Code  

of Conduct to hold the same as ‘misconduct’ on the part of the  

appellant.  

17. This apart, as there is no provision in the concerned  statute to withhold appointment permanently, it was not open  

to the University to pass such order.

For  the  reasons  aforesaid,  the  order  of  punishment  

contained in Memorandum dated 22nd February, 2010 cannot be  

upheld. The said memorandum is accordingly declared illegal  

and cannot be upheld.  

24

Page 25

B) 2  nd    Chargesheet – Memorandum dated 27  th   August, 2007:   

18. A fresh memorandum was issued by the University on 27th  

August, 2007 alleging that the appellant caused ACBR to pay an  

amount  of  Rs.16,63,284/-  towards  unauthorized  expenditures  

incurred by him like telephone bills and bills of security  

guards and peon, during the period 1999-2005 though he was not  

functioning as Director of ACBR during the said period.  

The  appellant  denied  the  allegation  and  again  retired  

Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice ‘X’ was appointed as  

Inquiry Officer who by his report dated 23rd February, 2010  

held that none of the charges against the appellant has been  

proved. Relevant portion of the said inquiry report reads as  

follows:

“In  view  of  the  above  discussion,  none of the charges against the delinquent  has  been  proved  and  he  is,  therefore,  absolved of all the charges against him  leveled  vide  the  memorandum  dated  27th  August, 2007.

Justice ‘X’, (Retd.) Dated: 23.02.2010 Inquiry Officer”

C) 3  rd    Chargesheet – Memorandum dated 16  th   October, 2007:   

19. In the memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 the appellant  

was  imputed  with  the  charge  which  can  be  summarized  as  

follows:  

By acting as a signatory who subscribed his name to the  

registration  of  ACBR  as  a  society  and  by  verifying  the  

affidavit which affirmed that he has no objection towards the  

location of the registered office of ACBR in the University  

25

Page 26

Campus, the appellant attempted to misappropriate the assets  

of the University. Such act was alleged to be a misconduct.  

The memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 reads as follows:

“MEMORANDUM

Whereas it has come to the notice of the  University  that  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  is  one  of  the  signatories  who  subscribed  their names to the proposed formation of a  Society  by  the  name  “Dr.  B.R.  Ambedkar  Centre for Biomedical Research” with the  description  of  its  office  as  “old  USIC  Building  Delhi  University  Campus,  Delhi- 7”.  As per the records of the Registrar  of Societies Delhi this society has been  registered  on  7.9.2006  vide  Registration  No.56511.    This is in violation of rules  and  regulations  of  the  University.   Dr.  B.R.   Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical  Research  (ABCR)  is  an  institution  maintained  by  the  University.  The  University  has  not  resolved  or  contemplated to form a society out of the  existing ACBR.  Since the proposal in the  society registered on 7.9.2006 has shown  the existing ACBR under the University of  Delhi  as  its  address  it  tantamount  to  misappropriation  of  the  assets  of  University  maintained  institution  for  an  unauthorized purpose. Thus, such a move is  fraudulent.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had given  an affidavit which was verified by him on  5.9.06 which  he  had solemnly affirmed  that  

“I  shall  have  no  objection  if  the  registered  office  of  the  society  named  “Dr.B.R.Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical  Research’ shall be situated at my above  said premises.”  The building in which  the ACBR of the University of Delhi is  situated  is  the  property  of  the  University  and  no  one  has  any  right  whatsoever  to  appropriate  it  for  any  purpose  other  than  what  the  Executive  Council of the University authorizes.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had no  locus standi to give any such affirmation  still had solemnly affirmed in the same  affidavit  that  “ACBR  is  the  legal  allottee  and  in  possession  of  the  property  bearing  no.  Old  USIC  building  Delhi University Campus Delhi-7” which is  

26

Page 27

contrary to the facts.  The fact is that  the  premises  where  the  ACBR  of  the  University of Delhi is presently located  (i.e.  old  USIC  building  University  of  Delhi,  Delhi-7)  was  not  allotted  by  University  of  Delhi  to  the  proposed  society which was fraudulently registered  on 7.9.2006.

And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra verified  the above mentioned affidavit on 5.9.2006  saying “that the contents of the above  affidavit are correct, true and to the  best of my knowledge and belief nothing  has been concealed therefrom”. But while  verifying this affidavit on 5.9.2006 he  fraudulently  concealed  a  material  fact  that  the  authorized  body  of  the  University  of  Delhi  i.e.  the  Executive  Council had not resolved to convert ACBR  into  a  registered  society.  He  also  concealed  the  fact  that  he  being  a  Professor in the Department of Chemistry  had no official position to furnish such  affidavit and therefore this act of Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  tantamount  to  fraudulent  misrepresentation  of  facts  with  a  malafide motive.

And  whereas the above acts of Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  constitute  misconduct  by  misleading  the  Registrar  of  societies  Govt. of NCT Delhi and also the general  public  by  fraudulently  attempting  to  convert  an  University  of  Delhi  as  a  registered  society  and  clandestinely  declaring  Dr.  B.R.  Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical Research as a Society and its  building as its registered office which  tantamounts  to  misappropriation  of  the  University’s property.”

20. The  appellant  submitted  his  explanation  denying  the  

allegation  and  requested  for  supply  of  documents  towards  

submitting an effective reply. But the same were not supplied.  

He also sought aid of a lawyer but it was also denied. Nothing  

is on the record to suggest that any list of witnesses or list  

of documentary evidence was supplied to the appellant or to  

the Inquiry Officer. We have gone through the original records  

supplied by the University. Even therein, we find no list of  

27

Page 28

witnesses  or  list  of  evidence  available  to  bring  home  the  

charges.  

(Retd.)Justice ‘X’ who was again appointed as the Inquiry  

Officer with regard to said charges, submitted a report dated  

23rd February, 2010, holding that the acts of the appellant  

giving  an  affidavit  that  he  had  no  objection  towards  the  

registration of the ACBR as a Society situated at the said  

premises,  and  getting  the  Society  registered  without  the  

approval of the University of Delhi, are clearly the acts of  

misconduct.  The relevant extract of the inquiry report dated  

23rd February, 2010 (relating to the third chargesheet) reads  

as follows:

           x     x      x      x      x

“The  delinquent  in  the  year  1992  was  working as UGC Research Scientist attached  to the Department of Chemistry, University  of  Delhi.  The  Executive  Council  of  the  University of Delhi in its meeting held on  15th February, 1992 approved the setting up  of  B.R.Ambedkar  Centre  for  Bio-medical  Research  (in  short  referred  to  as  ACBR)  and  the  delinquent  while  working  as  UGC  Research Scientist was allowed to function  as officiating Director of ACBR vide order  dated  30th May,  1995  till  regular  appointment of the Director of the Centre  was made.  With effect from 25th June, 1996  the delinquent is serving as Professor in  the Department of Chemistry, University of  Delhi,  even  after  his  appointment  as  Professor in the Department of Chemistry,  he  continued  to  work  as  Director,  ACBR  till  he  was  relieved  from  the  post  of  Professor  in  Chemistry  to  take  up  the  appointment  of  Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University,  Jhansi  on  31st  

July,  1999.  On  his  appointment  as  Vice- Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University,  the  delinquent sought extraordinary leave with  a  lien  in  his  substantive  post  of  Professor,  Department  of  Chemistry  to  enable  him  to  join  as  Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand Univesity and his request was  

28

Page 29

allowed  by  the  Executive  Council  of  the  University.  On  his  taking  over  as  Vice- Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  Univesity,  the  University  of  Delhi  vide  notification  dated 20th September, 1999 appointed Prof.  Vani  Brahmachari  as  the  Officiating  Director, ACBR.

In accordance with his request dated  26th July, 2002 the extraordinary leave of  the  delinquent  was  converted  into  deputation  service.  The  period  of  deputation was to expire on 31st July 2005.  On 13th July, 2005, however, the delinquent  came  back  and  wrote  a  letter  to  the  University  that  after  completing  his  tenure as Vice-Chancellor, he had returned  back and reported for duty as Professor,  Department  of  Chemistry,  University  of  Delhi. It appears that on 18th July, 2005  itself,  a  news  item  appeared  in  the  newspaper  according  to  which  the  delinquent was removed as Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand University and the Registrar,  Delhi University, therefore, on the same  day, wrote a letter to the Commissioner,  Jhansi  and  Principal  Secretary  to  the  Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh  regarding  the  authenticity of the newspaper report. It  is the case of the University that though  the delinquent had joined his substantive  post as Professor, Department of Chemistry  but he tried to clandestinely work as full  time  Director,  ACBR  under  the  garb  of  notification dated 18th July, 2005 of ACBR  issued under the signatures of the Deputy  Registrar of the said Centre. On coming to  know of the notification, a note was put  up by the Registrar to the Acting Vice- Chancellor about the same and on the same  day,  the  Registrar  asked  the  Deputy  Registrar,  ACBR  to  withdraw  the  notification dated 18th July, 2005 whereby  the  delinquent  was  asked  to  work  as  Director, ACBR. In the meantime, Principal  Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh  vide letter dated 26th July, 2005 informed  the University confirming the removal of  the  delinquent  as  Vice-Chancellor  in  pursuance  of  the  order  dated  16th July,  2005  passed  by  the  Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh  in  his  capacity  as  Chancellor,  Bundelkhand University. This was pursuant  to some departmental proceedings initiated  against  the  delinquent  for  his  having  allegedly  committed  financial  

29

Page 30

irregularities etc. during his tenure as  Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University.  The  aforesaid  acts  of  delinquent  in  not  informing  the  University  that  he  was  removed  as  Vice-Chancellor,  Bundelkhand  University and his allegedly usurping the  post of Director, ACBR were considered to  be  acts  of  misconduct  by  the  University  and  memorandum  dated  2nd November,  2005  was,  accordingly,  issued  to  him  to  show  cause why disciplinary proceedings be not  initiated against him. Not being satisfied  with  the  reply  of  the  delinquent,  the  University decided to hold an inquiry and  appointed the undersigned as the Inquiry  Officer.  In the said inquiry it was held  that the delinquent had concealed the fact  of  his  removal  from  the  post  of  Vice- Chancellor, Bundelkhand University with a  view  to  mislead  the  University  and  that  despite his not being Director, ACBR, he  continued to describe as founder Director  or Director, ACBR with a view to give a  misleading impression.”

     x      x      x     x    x

“By their unauthorized acts, the Governing  Body  as  well  as  the  delinquent  had  illegally  attempted  to  convert  a  University-maintained  institution  into  a  registered  society  and  its  building  as  registered office of the society. Out of  the  signatories  to  the  memorandum  of  association of the society, it is only the  delinquent who is under the employment of  the  University  and  disciplinary  proceedings  can,  therefore,  be  initiated  only against the delinquent. In any case  it cannot be the defence of the delinquent  that no action can be initiated against  him as no action is taken against other  signatories  to  the  memorandum  of  association of the society. It is only the  delinquent who has given a wrong affidavit  with a view to mislead the authorities.  The delinquent knowing fully that he was  not  the  Director,  ACBR  at  the  relevant  time as he was not appointed to the said  post in accordance with Ordinance XX of  the Ordinances of the University of Delhi  and there were already incumbents on the  post,  there  was  no  occasion  for  him  to  describe himself as Director, ACBR. It was  totally  illegal  and  unjustified  on  his  part to get a society registered even on  the  basis  of  the  resolutions   of   the  

30

Page 31

Governing  Body  and describe the building  where ACBR is located as his office as his  office  and  to  convert  it  into  the  registered  office  of  the  society.  The  delinquent could not, in any manner, give  an affidavit that he had no objection if  the registered office of the society is  situate  at  the  premises  where  ACBR  was  located.  The  delinquent  was  only  a  Professor in the Department of Chemistry  and he was not authorised to give any such  affidavit by the University or even by the  Governing Body to depose that the premises  where the registered office was proposed  to be situated was “his premises”, I am,  therefore, firmly of the opinion that all  these  acts  of  the  delinquent  giving  an  affidavit that he had no objection if the  registered office the society was situated  at  the  said  premises  and  getting  the  society registered without the approval of  the University of Delhi are clearly the  acts  of  misconduct.  Charges  against  the  delinquent stand proved.”

After  supplying  a  copy  of  the  inquiry  report  to  the  

appellant  for  his  response,  the  University  issued  impugned  

memorandum  dated  26th March,  2010  holding  that  the  charges  

against the appellant are grave and the same are in a way an  

attempt to challenge the powers of the Executive Council with  

regard to the general control and supervision of the ACBR, as  

an institution established and managed by the University of  

Delhi under Ordinance XX(6) of the University. It was further  

held that such acts amounts to gross misconduct on the part of  

the appellant and the same is unbecoming of a teacher of the  

University  and  thereby  disengaged  the  appellant,  with  

immediate effect, in terms of Para 6 of Annexure to Ordinance  

XI  of  the  University.  Relevant  portion  of  the  order  of  

punishment  and  memorandum  dated  26th March,  2010  reads  as  

follows:

31

Page 32

“And  whereas  the  Council,  vide  its  above resolution, noted that the charges  leveled against Prof. Ramesh Chandra are  grave and the same are in a way an attempt  to challenge the powers of the Executive  Council with regard to the general control  and  supervision  of  the  Dr.B.R.Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical  Research,  as  an  institution  established  and  manage- University of Delhi under Ordinance XX(6)  of  the  University,  are  acts  of  gross  misconduct on his part and unbecoming of a  teacher of the University.

And  whereas  the  Executive  Council  further  resolved  that  the  services  of  Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  (under  suspension),  as  Professor  in  the  Department  of  Chemistry  be  disengaged,  with  immediate  effect, in terms of clause 6 of Annexure  to Ordinance XI of the University for his  grave misconduct.

And therefore, the services of Prof.  Ramesh  Chandra  (under  suspension)  as  Professor in the Department of Chemistry,  University of Delhi stand disengaged, with  immediate effect, in terms of clause 6 of  Annexure  to  Ordinance  XI  of  the  University.

A  copy  of  the  Executive  Council  Resolution  No.281  dated  25.3.2010  is  enclosed herewith.

Encl: As above(2 pages). Registrar.”

21. In the inquiry report, the background of appointment of  

the appellant since 1992 has been referred, though it had no  

connection with charges. No such fact or evidence was brought  

regarding  the  background  history  of  the  appellant  was  

mentioned in the (third) chargesheet nor any such evidence is  

on record produced by the University.  

The Inquiry Officer noticed the letter of the Principal  

Secretary  of  the  Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh  (Chancellor,  

Bundelkhand University) dated 28th July, 2005 confirming the  

removal  of  the  appellant  as  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  

32

Page 33

University and the order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the  

Governor of U.P. in his capacity of Chancellor, Bundelkhand  

University though it was not part of the charges nor such  

evidence was cited in the imputed charges or list of evidence.  

Similarly, though the memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005  

or allegation levelled therein was not the part of the third  

chargesheet nor cited as evidence by the University, the same  

were also relied upon.  

Influenced  by  the  aforesaid  extraneous  facts  and  

consideration, which are not the part of the chargesheet or  

the evidence cited by the University and without intimating  

such  facts  to  the  appellant  the  Inquiry  Officer  held  the  

appellant guilty.

22. It appears from the record that the ACBR was established  

within the premises of Delhi University on an initiative by  

the Central Government according to the proposal submitted by  

the appellant. The appellant being Director of ACBR, acted in  

terms of decision of Governing Body of ACBR, towards making  

the ACBR autonomous within the premises of University. In view  

of clash of interest between the officials of the University  

and the ACBR, one or other action appears to have been taken  

against  the  appellant,  as  apparent  from  the  memorandum  of  

punishment dated 26th March, 2010, as quoted below:

“And  whereas  the  Council,  vide  its  above resolution, noted that the charges  leveled against Prof. Ramesh Chandra are  grave and the same are in a way an attempt  to challenge the powers of the Executive  Council with regard to the general control  and  supervision  of  the  Dr.B.R.Ambedkar  Centre  for  Biomedical  Research,  as  an  institution  established  and  manage-

33

Page 34

University of Delhi under Ordinance XX(6)  of  the  University,  are  acts  of  gross  misconduct on his part and unbecoming of a  teacher of the University.”

23. We are not concerned about the bias as alleged against  

the 2nd respondent- Prof. Deepak Pantal, Ex-Vice Chancellor as  

it was not accepted in the first round of litigation.  

However, action of the University can be held to be mala  

fide and illegal for the reasons as detailed below.

24. Though  there  was  no  allegation  leveled  against  the  

appellant  in  the  (third)  chargesheet  that  he  attempted  to  

challenge the powers of the Executive Council with regard to  

the  general  control  and  supervision  of  the  ACBR,  as  an  

institution established and managed by the University of Delhi  

but such charge was held to be proved by memorandum dated 26th  

March, 2010, as noticed and quoted above.

25. Further one ‘note’ given by the Registrar and approved by  

the  Vice-Chancellor  in  regard  to  the  departmental  inquiry  

being relevant, it is desirable to refer and discuss the same.

The original ‘note’ relating to engagement of a retired  

Judge of the High Court for conducting inquiry was given by  

Registrar of the University on 3rd April, 2007. From the said  

note dated 3rd April, 2007 as approved by the Vice-Chancellor,  

we find that Justice ‘X’ a retired Judge of the Delhi High  

Court  was  appointed  as  the  Inquiry  Officer  to  conduct  the  

Departmental Inquiry against the appellant as prior to his  

elevation to High Court as a Judge, he was the counsel for the  

Delhi University. The relevant portion of the note reads as  

follows:

34

Page 35

“Justice ‘X’ (name changed), retired  Judge of Delhi High Court had, prior to  the elevation to High Court as a Judge,  handled Delhi University cases. He is well  versed  with  the  Delhi  University  Acts,  Statutes and Ordinances.”

It  was  in  this  background  the  University  decided  to  

engage him as Inquiry Officer.

26. We are of the opinion that if an Hon’ble retired Judge of  

a Court before his appointment as a Judge was a lawyer of any  

of  the  party  (Delhi  University  herein),  the  Disciplinary  

Authority should not engage such retired Judge as an Inquiry  

Officer,  as  the  other  party  may  allege  bias  against  the  

Inquiry Officer and the reputation of the Hon’ble Judge may be  

at stake.  

The  University  is  directed  not  to  engage  any  Hon’ble  

retired Judge of any Court, who was earlier a counsel of the  

University as an Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against  

any of its employee.

27. The Inquiry Officer herein being a retired Judge of the  

High Court is a person of vast legal acumen and experience.  

The  Presenting  Officer  also  would  be  a  person  who  had  

sufficient  experience  in  presenting  case  before  Inquiry  

Officer. In this background, it is also required to consider  

whether  an  application  of  a  delinquent  employee  seeking  

permission to be represented through a legally trained and  

qualified lawyer should be allowed or not.

28. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar  

Raghvendranath Nandkarni and others, (1983) 1 SCC 124,  this  

Court observed:

35

Page 36

“10…….Now  if  the  rules  prescribed  for  such an enquiry did not place an embargo  on the right of the delinquent employee to  be  represented  by  a  legal  practitioner,  the matter would be in the discretion of  the Enquiry Officer whether looking to the  nature  of  charges,  the  type  of  evidence  and  complex  or  simple  issues  that  may  arise  in  the  course  of  enquiry,  the  delinquent employee in order to afford a  reasonable  opportunity  to  defend  himself  should  be  permitted  to  appear  through  a  legal practitioner…….  

12………In our view we have reached a stage  in our onward march to fair play in action  that where in an enquiry before a domestic  tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted  against  a  legally  trained  mind,  if  he  seeks permission to appear through a legal  practitioner  the  refusal  to  grant  this  request  would  amount  to  denial  of  a  reasonable request to defend himself and  the  essential  principles  of  natural  justice would be violated……”

29. In  J.K.  Aggarwal  v.  Haryana  Seeds  Development  

Corporation, (1991) 2 SCC 283, this Court held that the denial  

of  the  assistance  of  a  legal  practitioner  in  inquiry  

proceedings would be unfair. This Court held as follows:

“8.  It would appear that in the inquiry,  the respondent-Corporation was represented  by  its  Personnel  and  Administration  Manager who is stated to be a man of law.  The rule itself recognises that where the  charges  are  so  serious  as  to  entail  a  dismissal  from  service  the  inquiry  authority  may  permit  the  services  of  a  lawyer. This rule vests a discretion. In  the matter of exercise of this discretion  one  of  the  relevant  factors  is  whether  there  is  likelihood  of  the  combat  being  unequal entailing a miscarriage or failure  of  justice  and  a  denial  of  a  real  and  reasonable  opportunity  for  defence  by  reasons  of  the  appellant  being  pitted  against  a  presenting  officer  who  is  trained in law. Legal Adviser and a lawyer  are  for  this  purpose  somewhat  liberally  

36

Page 37

construed  and  must  include  “whoever  assists  or  advises  on  facts  and  in  law  must be deemed to be in the position of a  legal  adviser”.  In  the  last  analysis,  a  decision has to be reached on a case to  case  basis  on  the  situational  particularities  and  the  special  requirements of justice of the case. It is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  go  into  the  larger question “whether as a sequel to an  adverse  verdict  in  a  domestic  enquiry  serious  civil  and  pecuniary  consequences  are likely to ensue, in order to enable  the  person  so  likely  to  suffer  such  consequences with a view to giving him a  reasonable opportunity to defend himself,  on  his  request,  should  be  permitted  to  appear through a legal practitioner” which  was kept open in Board of Trustees of the  Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar8. However, it  was held in that case (SCC p. 132, para  12)

“… In our view we have reached a stage  in our onward march to fair play in action  that where in an enquiry before a domestic  tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted  against  a  legally  trained  mind,  if  he  seeks permission to appear through a legal  practitioner  the  refusal  to  grant  this  request  would  amount  to  denial  of  a  reasonable request to defend himself and  the  essential  principles  of  natural  justice would be violated….”

30. In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the  

view that if any person who is or was a legal practitioner,  

including  a  retired  Hon’ble  Judge  is  appointed  as  Inquiry  

Officer  in  an  inquiry  initiated  against  an  employee,  the  

denial  of  assistance  of  legal  practitioner  to  the  charged  

employee would be unfair.  

31. For  the  reasons  aforesaid,  we  hold  that  all  the  

Departmental inquiries conducted against the appellant were in  

violation of rules of natural justice. This apart as the third  

inquiry report is based on extraneous facts and first part of  

the  charge held to be proved in memorandum dated 26th March,  

37

Page 38

2010 being not the part of the charges shown in the (third)  

chargesheet, the order of punishment, including Resolution by  

memorandum dated 26th March, 2010 cannot be upheld.  

32. For  the  reasons  aforesaid,  we  set  aside  both  penal  

memoranda dated 22nd February, 2010 and 26th March, 2010. In  

effect,  the  appellant  stands  reinstated  to  the  post  of  

Professor but in the facts and circumstances, we allow only  

50% of back wages (salary) to appellant for the intervening  

period i.e. from the date of his disengagement till the date  

of  this  judgment.  However,  the  aforesaid  period  shall  be  

treated  ‘on  duty’  for  all  purposes  including  seniority,  

increment,  fixation  of  pay,  retrial  benefits,  etc.  The  

respondents are directed to pay the appellant arrears within  

two months, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest  

@ 6% from the date of this judgment.  

33. The  appeal  is  allowed  with  aforesaid  observations  and  

directions. No costs.  

………………………………………….J.                  (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

………………………………………….J.               (C.NAGAPPAN)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 06, 2015.

38

Page 39

39