Service Law; Dr. Arun Kumar Wahi Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi [Allahabad High Court, 15-12-2017]

Service Law – Enquiry – How to proceed with the enquiry – Functions and duties of the Enquiry Officer – Presentation of the Employer’s case procedure to be followed – Examination of the defence witnesses – Adequate opportunity for adducing evidence – Examination and cross examination of the accused – Argument – Appreciation of evidence in a domestic enquiry.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J. & Hon’ble Siddharth, J.

Delivered on 15.12.2017

WRIT – A No. – 30811 of 2007

Petitioner :- Dr. Arun Kumar Wahi Respondent :- Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Srivastava,Shashi Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Naqvi,Ajit Kumar Singh,S.C.,V.B.Singh

(Delivered by Hon’ble Siddharth, J.)

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel ably assisted by Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the following reliefs:

(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure -11 to the writ petition), 13/17.12.2005 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and the resolution of the Executive Council dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition).

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from making any reduction from the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the above mentioned impugned orders and the resolution of the Executive Council.

(iii). Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, AND

(iv). To award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner’s case is that while working as Professor in the respondent University, he was placed under suspension by the order dated 24.06.2003 of the Vice Chancellor. Prior to this, resolution no.176 was passed by the Executive Committee of the University on 23.03.2003, whereby a decision was taken for issuing notices to the petitioner as well as to two others Professors, namely Prof. R.L.Khosa and Prof. P.V.Sharma, to show cause as to why they should not be removed from services of the University for being engaged in serious academic misconduct. A Charge Sheet dated 21.10.2003 was issued to all the 3 Professors and the petitioner submitted a preliminary reply dated 07.02.2004 denying the charges. One Justice S.K.Mahajan was appointed Enquiry Officer on 23.01.2004 to hold enquiry into the charges against the petitioner but he expressed his inability to proceed with the enquiry and another Enquiry Officer, Sri A.K.Garde, was appointed Enquiry Officer on 11.10.2004, when on 30.06.2004 the petitioner as well as Dr. R.L.Khosa had retired from service. Legally no enquiry could have continued after the retirement of the petitioner.

After retirement, the petitioner was appointed as Director, College of Pharmacy, Institute of Foreign Trade & Management, Moradabad and without service of any notice an enquiry report dated 16.09.2005 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He found Charge Nos. 1 to 6,9 and 10 proved and Charge nos. 7, 8 and 11 were found not proved.

The Registrar forwarded the Enquiry Report to the petitioner alongwith a Show Cause Notice at his Moradabad Address to submit his objections and the petitioner filed the same on 21.11.2005. The Vice Chancellor without considering the objections of the petitioner by the order dated 13/17.12.2005 imposed penalty of deduction of 20% of the pension of the petitioner as per the Rule-9 (I) of CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
News Reporter