High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19902 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt Meena Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Pragyanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Agarwal Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel and, Shri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent University. 2. Challenge has been raised to the termination order dated 30.10.2022 passed by respondent no.3/Board of Management, Gautam Buddha University, Greater NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Two submissions have been advanced by learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the petitioner. First, it has been submitted, the appointment of the petitioner having been made by the Vice Chancellor, the termination order could not have been passed by Board of Management. Here, reliance has been placed on Clause 9 of the first statute of the University. Thus, further prejudice has been caused to the petitioner inasmuch as her right of appeal to the Board of Management has been taken up. 4. Second, it has been submitted, while the enquiry report is vitiated, the petitioner was prevented from establishing the illegalities and deficiencies in the enquiry, at the stage of submitting her reply to the second show cause notice dated 27.09.2022 inasmuch as only 15 page enquiry report was made available to the petitioner though the record of the enquiry proceedings containing statements of witnesses and other material, were never supplied. In that regard, heavy reliance was placed on the contents of the second show cause notice dated 27.09.2022. 5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent University would contend, the Board of Management of the University was the appointing authority of the petitioner. As she was not an officer of the University under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), referring to Clause 9 and 10 (2)(iii) of the first statutes of the University, it has been submitted, in her capacity as Staff Officer (S.O.) to the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner was never an officer of the University but only holder of a post that may have been created by the Board of Management. Therefore, the Board of Management was the disciplinary authority. It has rightly passed the impugned termination order. 6. As to the right of appeal, it has been submitted, Section 17(2)(a) of the Act, the Board of Governor may review the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner has statutory remedy available to her. 7. On the issue of non-compliance of principles of natural justice, it has been vehemently contended, the entire material accompanying the enquiry report dated 04.06.2021 was supplied to the petitioner vide second show cause notice dated 27.09.2022. The petitioner has duly acknowledged the same in writing. In her reply submitted to the second show cause notice, the petitioner never raised such objection. Therefore, there is no merit in the same.
Legal Reasoning
8. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, insofar as the first objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Management was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and that her disciplinary authority was the Vice Chancellor, the same may not be accepted. Section 8 of the Act clearly provides following to be the officers of the University namely, the Chancellor; Vice Chancellor; Pro-Vice-Chancellor; the Deans of Faculties; the Registrar and, the Finance Officer. Other officers may also be appointed and be recognized as such if they are declared by the statutes to be the officers of the University. 9. Perusal of the first statute of the University does not bring out any provision where under the petitioner in discharge of duties on the post designated 'Staff Officer to the Vice Chancellor' may claim declaration made that that post or the occupant of that post be an officer of the University. On the contrary, under clause 10(2)(iii), other posts including administrative, ministerial etc. may be created by the Board of Management of the University which itself is an authority under Section 16 of the Act. 10. Therefore, notwithstanding the issuance of appointment letter dated 08.07.2010 by the Registrar, that too on the post of 'Personal Secretary to Vice Chancellor', the petitioner may never claim to be an officer of the University 11. In that view of the matter, there is no error in the inherent jurisdiction exercised by the Board of Management to act as disciplinary authority over the petitioner. The challenge to that extent must fail, for that reason. 12. As to the second aspect, perusal of the second show cause notice dated 27.9.2022 leaves much to doubt as to due compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is a sine qua non for the disciplinary proceedings against an employee that he may be served with the enquiry report and the accompanying material at the stage of second show cause notice. While the recital in the notice dated 27.9.2022 does refer to other material being annexured to the enquiry report supplied to the petitioner, yet in the description of the documents attached to the said notice, following reference has been made - 'The complete enquiry report in total - 15 pages'. 13. Then pursuant to the earlier order, the record of the proceedings had been produced by learned counsel for the University. At page 23 of that record, the endorsement made by the petitioner upon receipt of the second show cause notice has been recorded. It does not inspire confidence that the annexures to the enquiry report had been served on the petitioner. 14. Thus, sufficient and reasonable doubt exists as to full compliance of rules of natural justice. Unless the petitioner had been first confronted with the enquiry material in entirety, she may never have been able to submit a complete defence thereto.
Decision
15. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. 16. Learned counsel for the University may supply to the learned counsel for the petitioner the complete set of documents accompanying the enquiry report during the course of the day. 17. The matter is accordingly remitted to the Board of Management of the University. Being enabled, the petitioner may now submit a fresh reply to the second show cause notice dated 27.9.2022 within a period of three weeks from today. Thereupon, the Board of Management may communicate a short date for personal hearing that may be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to appear on such date and cooperate in the proceedings. Accordingly, the Board of Management may pass a fresh order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner. 18. With the above directions, present petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.12.2022 Prakhar Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.09 10:06:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad