Said Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. and on 16 Sep 2025 — Writ Petition No. 7156 of 2020

Judgment

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging an order dated 14.12.2024 passed by the Registrar, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby her services from the post of Private Secretary, have been terminated.

2. Facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Private Secretary1 to Vice Chancellor, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar2, on contractual basis on 08.07.2010. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was fully eligible for the post of PS as she was having M.Phil, M.Ed. and M.A. Degrees along with four years of experience. Her services were regularized by an order of the Vice Chancellor dated 13.04.2018. Later, the petitioner being eligible for promotion, was promoted vide order dated 18.09.2018 as Staff Officer to Vice Chancellor. 1 PS (Wrongly mentioned as ‘Personal Secretary in the writ petition’, though it should be ‘Private Secretary’ as mentioned in Rule 4(b) of the Regulations For Non-Teaching Staff of Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida) 2 The University 2 The eligibility for promotion to the post of Staff Officer is ‘Graduation’, five years of continuous service in Gautam Buddha University in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 and good record of work.

3. The petitioner has been discharging her duties with utmost sincerity and devotion. She carried an impeccable reputation in the University. During her service period from 2010 to 2017, out of eight years, in seven she was awarded ‘outstanding’ remark in her annual assessment record and for one year as ‘good’.

4. On 18.08.2020, the petitioner was suspended mentioning about a legal notice of one Vishnu Pratap Singh moved through Amit Kumar Agarwal, Advocate, alleging irregularities in her appointment as Private Secretary and promotion as Staff Officer. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7156 of 20203. Initially, the Court directed the University to file a counter affidavit and no interim order was granted. Finally, writ petition came to be disposed of with certain directions, on 21.09.2022.

Meanwhile, Sri S.N. Tiwari, the then Officiating Registrar, lodged a first information report against the petitioner through an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., bearing Case Crime No. 166 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16275 of 20204, which was dismissed as not-pressed on 05.01.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4389 of 2021, which was allowed by order dated 06.04.2021. The matter was investigated and ultimately a final report was submitted in the said case, on 09.07.2021.

6. In terms of the suspension order, an enquiry committee comprising three faculty members, was constituted by an order dated 21.08.2020. Said Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others 3 4 Meena Singh v. Stae of U.P. & 2 Others 3 order was appended with ‘terms of reference’ which mentioned five articles on the basis of charges levelled against the petitioner.

7. On 27.10.2020, the Vice Chancellor substituted the enquiry committee by appointing a single-member enquiry committee, who again served a new charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The petitioner made a request to the Presenting Officer through an e-mail dated 31.10.2020 requesting for providing supportive documents mentioned in Annexure-II to the said order dated 27.10.2020.

8. The petitioner submitted her first reply before the enquiry officer on

09.11.2020. On 21.12.2020, the enquiry officer was changed and in place of Dr. Sumati Verma, Sri Ravi Kant Sinha was appointed as enquiry officer. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer, on third date of hearing, which was scheduled for 25.01.2021. She sought time to produce some witnesses. Whereafter, she submitted supplementary reply / statement of defence on 06.03.2021, denying all the charges levelled against her. She also requested the enquiry officer to afford her an opportunity to cross-examine Sri S.N. Tiwari, however, her request was outrightly rejected. On

13.03.2021, Sri S.N. Tiwari appeared before the enquiry officer, but no access was given to the petitioner to cross-examine him. Petitioner also sought permission to produce Sri Umakant Ahirwar as her witness, but the request was turned down.

9. In the meantime, Sri S.N. Tiwari got a writ petition of quo-warranto being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18675 of 20205, filed through a practising lawyer Sri Pankaj Kumar Kesharwani, before this Court, challenging the petitioner’s appointment. Said writ petition is still pending.

10. The petitioner was issued a second show cause notice on 27.09.2022, to which she submitted her reply on 10.10.2022. Said reply was examined 5 Pankaj Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P. & others 4 and forwarded by the Senior Office Assistant to the Board of Management. On 01.11.2022, the petitioner received an e-mail from the Registrar of the University enclosing therewith her termination order dated 30.10.20226 purportedly passed by the Board of Management, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner.

11. First termination order was challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ-A No. 19902 of 20227, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 08.12.2022, setting aside the termination order dated 30.10.2022 and granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh reply to the second show cause notice dated 27.9.2022 within a period of three weeks. By the said order, the Board of Management was directed to communicate a short date for personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner.

12. In compliance with the aforementioned order, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Board of Management. She submitted her reply. However, without considering petitioner’s written reply and oral submissions, an order dated 02.03.20238 was passed, again removing the petitioner’s services. Challenging the said order dated 02.03.2023, the petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 6339 of 20239, which was disposed of by order dated 18.04.2023, directing the competent authority to hear the petitioner afresh, giving due consideration to her reply submitted before it, which the petitioner will be submitting within a period of two weeks, and pass a fresh order in the light of observations made therein, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order along with reply by the petitioner. 6 7 8 9 First Termination Order Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. & 3 Others Second Termination Order (Removal Order) Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others 5

13. In terms of the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2023, the petitioner submitted her detailed reply along with supportive documents on

04.05.2023, wherein besides reiterating her earlier contentions, she specifically and emphatically asserted that the Ph.D. degree had no role either in her initial appointment or in her promotion. She also pleaded that she has been deprived of opportunity to cross-examine Sri S.N. Tiwari and that no oral evidence or witness proved the charges levelled in the enquiry report. On 14.06.2023, the petitioner appeared before the Board of Management and vehemently raised her contentions.

14. The Board of Management, in its meeting dated 14.06.2023, resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner and consequently, the order dated

27.06.202310 was passed by the Registrar of the University. Said termination order was challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ-A No. 13696 of

202311. This Court by order dated 29.11.2023 partly allowed the said writ petition with the following directions: (a) The order dated 27.06.2023 as well as the minutes of the Board of Management, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 14.06.2023 are set aside; (b) The matter stands remitted back to the respondents to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of issuing Show Cause Notice/ Disagreement Note; (c) The proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order subject to cooperation of the writ petitioner, strictly in accordance with statutes and ordinances, as applicable after providing adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner; (d) The question of reinstatement and payment of consequential benefits shall be subject to final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings; (e) In case, the disciplinary authority proposes to suspend the writ petitioner, then the writ petitioner shall be admissible to subsistence allowance, arrears and current as and when same falls due subject to compliance of the Rules.

15. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the order passed by this Court dated 29.11.2023, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 10 Third Termination Order 11 Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. & 3 Others 6

23.03.2024, wherein she was asked to submit reply within seven days. Reply to the said notice was given by the petitioner on 07.04.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the meetings of the Board of Management on

13.05.2024 and 31.07.2024. Subsequently, a letter was received by the petitioner from one Advocate, namely, Mr. S.C. Tripathi asking for her presence. Since the petitioner was not aware about the constitution of the external committee, she communicated with the University, whereupon she was provided the terms of reference and the order with respect to formation of new committee. The petitioner submitted her response to the ‘terms of reference’ and placed certain documents in support of her claim. She also submitted her reply on 07.10.2024. Thereafter, a copy of enquiry report dated 08.11.2024 was received by the petitioner along with letter dated

13.11.2024, whereby she was asked to submit a response within seven days. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted her reply on 20.11.2024.

16. Thereafter, the respondent authority - Registrar of the University passed the impugned order dated 14.12.202412, whereby petitioner’s services have been terminated. Said order is being assailed by the petitioner by means of present writ petition.

17. I have heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned Advocate along with Sri Aishwarya Pratap Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate along with Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent University and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been performing her duties with utmost sincerity and devotion since the date of her initial appointment as Private Secretary. Having fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being promoted as Staff Officer to Vice Chancellor, she was promoted on 17.04.2018, however, with a malafide intent to harass the 12 Fourth Termination Order 7 petitioner, on account of the complaint moved by her against the Officiating Registrar of the University, Sri S.N. Tiwari, on 06.08.2020, alleging misbehaviour and sexual harassment, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in reference to the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan13, the University has constituted an Internal Complaint Committee (ICC), however, in a blatant disregard to the directions issued therein it has failed to conduct any inquiry. On the contrary, in retaliation, the petitioner has been targeted placing her under suspension on 18.08.2020, on the basis of a forged complaint.

20. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged complaint dated 27.08.2020 has been disowned by Mr. Vishnu Pratap Singh (alleged complainant), who stated on oath that he had neither instructed any advocate to issue a notice nor he is aware of any such notice. Relying upon the said affidavit of alleged complaintant, the disciplinary action should have been nullified.

21. Stressing upon the ill-intent of Sri S.N. Tiwari, the then Registrar, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Sri S.N. Tiwari has himself proceeded to lodge a first information report against the petitioner, wherein the proceedings culminated in a closure report on 09.07.2021 and the petitioner was exonerated from the alleged criminal liability.

22. To show biased and premeditated mind of Sri S.N. Tiwari to anyhow harass the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that Mr. Tiwari got a writ petition of quo-warranto14 filed before this Court through a 13 (1997) 6 SCC 241 14 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18675 of 2020 (Pankaj Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P. & others) 8 practising Advocate of this Court Sri Pankaj Kumar Kesharwani, which is still pending.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s suspension and, later on, termination have been made on account of malafide intent of respondent authorities whose sole motive was to anyhow penalize the petitioner so as to wreck vengeance of filing complaint against the officiating Registrar, whereas the enquiry officer in the enquiry report dated

04.06.2021 himself observed that the petitioner was indeed pursuing her Ph.D as stated in the curriculum vitae submitted along with her application dated 07.07.2010 for the post of PS/Executive Assistant. At that time, she did not make any wrongful claim regarding she being a Ph.D candidate in order to emphasise her candidature as competent enough for the post of PS/ Executive Assistant to VC, GBU.

24. Laying emphasis on the challenge to the impugned termination order dated 14.12.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner summarized his submissions, inter alia, stating that said order has been passed in total disregard to the specific directions issued by this Court in the order dated

29.11.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 13696 of 2023, which are being reproduced herein below: “35. Accordingly the writ petition is decided in the following manner:- (a) The order dated 27.06.2023 as well as the minutes of the Board of Management, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 14.06.2023 are set aside; (b) The matter stands remitted back to the respondents to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of issuing Show Cause Notice/ Disagreement Note; (c) The proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order subject to cooperation of the writ petitioner, strictly in accordance with statutes and ordinances, as applicable after providing adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner; (d) The question of reinstatement and payment of consequential benefit shall be subject to final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings; (e) In case, the disciplinary authority proposes to suspend the writ petitioner, then the writ petitioner shall be admissible to subsistence allowance, arrears and current as and when same falls due subject to compliance of the Rules.” 9

25. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authority has erroneously proceeded to constitute an external committee comprising of following members: (i) Sri Lalloo Singh, District Sessions Judge (Retired)-Chairman; (ii) Sri Anurag Ojha, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India; and (iii) Dr. Chandrashekhar Paswan, Assistant Professor, Gautam Buddha University.

26. Controverting to the enquiry report dated 08.11.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry committee failed to appreciate the true facts and reply of the petitioner. He further submits that there is no dispute regarding eligibility of the petitioner for the post of Private Secretary as mentioned in Paragraph No. 20 of the counter affidavit. The respondent University has also not disputed the educational qualification of the petitioner. He further contends that in view of the prescribed eligibility criteria, Ph.D. degree does not play any role for the appointment of a candidate as Private Secretary or promotion on the post of Staff Officer to the Vice Chancellor. No benefit was extended to the petitioner on the basis of Ph.D. degree.

27. It is also contended that petitioner’s application for the post of Assistant Professor showing a fake Ph.D. degree does not adversely affect her minimum educational qualification, which she possesses for appointment and promotion on the post of Private Secretary and Staff Officer to Vice Chancellor, respectively. Insofar as the salutation ‘Dr.’, said to have been used by the petitioner, it did not extend any benefit in favour of the petitioner either at the time of her initial appointment as Private Secretary or thereafter promotion as Staff Officer.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and sans taking 10 into consideration of the written objections filed by the petitioner. Neither any finding nor any reason has been recorded therein except treating the report of external committee dated 08.11.2024 as a gospel truth. The objections raised by the petitioner in her detailed reply, after issuance of disagreement note or even before passing the impugned termination order, have not been considered.

29. Regarding justification to ram an officer with the label of ‘doubtful integrity’, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of M.S. Bindra v. Union of India15: “13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny, i.e., want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials, no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials, the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim “nemo firut repente turpissimus” (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of administrative law. The authorities should not keep their eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of “doubtful integrity”, it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label “doubtful integrity”.

30. In support of his submissions, with respect to judicial interference in disciplinary matters and consideration of quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs of following judgements: (i) B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others16: “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-