Bombay High Court
Professor Anil Vasant Mandke vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 23 July, 2009
Author: S.C. Dharmadhikari
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, S.C. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1495 OF 1989
Professor Anil Vasant Mandke ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Indian Institute of Technology
2.Professor Biswajit Nag
3.Miss N.A. Bandukwala, the
inquiry Officer appointed by
Respondent No2.
4.The Visitor Honourable His Excellency
the President of India.
5.Union of India. ... ... Respondents
Petitioner in person, present.
Mr.P.M. Patel for Respondents.
----
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE AND
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
th
Date of reserving the Judgment : 4 May 2009
rd
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 23 July 2009
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 :::
2
JUDGMENT :(Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 18th June 1986, Exhibit-A to the Petition, the charge-sheet issued to him on the same date, copy of which is at Exhibit-B to the Petition, so also the order dated 10th March 1989 removing him from services of the Indian Institute of Technology ( I.I.T. for short).
2. The Petitioner appears in person. Aggrieved by these orders, he has filed the present Petition contending that he has a bright academic career and background. He states that an advertisement was issued by the 1st Respondent on 13th of August 1975, inviting applications for filling up of the posts of Training and Placement Officer in I.I.T., Mumbai. He submits that a letter of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 3 appointment was issued on 20th December 1975.
The Petitioner underwent a medical examination on 26th December 1975 and joined duties with effect from 16th January 1976.
He was given a confirmation letter on 16th of January 1977. He submits that all throughout the documents and letters issued to him demonstrate that his designation is that of a Professor. I.I.T. Professors and employees were treating him as Professor and, therefore, that was his designation.
He submits that other Organizations and Authorities also corresponded with him by addressing him as Professor Mandke. He states that the Board of Governors granted him full pay scale of Rs.1500-2500 vide orders dated 20th December 1985 and 17th June 1986.
3. The Petitioner s grievance is that an order of suspension was issued on 18th of June 1986 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 4 and on that date itself he was served with a charge-sheet. According to him, the charge-
sheet is completely vague and ambiguous. He submits that the charge-sheet alleges that the conduct of the Petitioner is unbecoming of a Senior Officer. There is an allegation of disregard and violation of the orders issued by the Director of the 1st Respondent on 27th December 1985 pertaining to the functions and procedures to be followed by the Training and Placement Committee and various directions issued by the Chairman etc. The charge further is that the Petitioner persistently flouted the instructions issued by the Director against the use of the word `Professor , Training and Placement `Division and `Head thereof.
Thus, a deliberate attempt was allegedly made to create a false and misleading impression about the status of the office of the Training and Placement. Violation of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 5 certain office orders has been alleged. It is further alleged that the Petitioner showed scant regard, decency and decorum and often used rude and impertinent language towards the Chairman of the Training and Placement Committee. He willfully remained absent from duty at the Training and Placement office on 4th of April 1986 without prior permission and knowledge of the Chairman of the Training and Placement Committee in spite of the fact that campus interviews were arranged on the said date.
The last and the eighth charge was that he created a situation for his own financial benefits by assigning himself more lectures.
4. On being served with the charge-sheet and the statement of imputations in support of the articles of charges, the Petitioner was allowed to go through the record. He was also permitted to file his Written Statement ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 6 which he filed and the same is dated 14th August 1986. The Petitioner denied the charges. He, inter alia, raised objections by contending that he may have been appointed as Training and Placement Officer of the Institute but he took over the post from Professor S.L. Kanitkar, who was himself a Professor of the Institute.
ig The
Petitioner contended that after his
appointment in January 1976 till May 15,
1985, he was working independently as a
Training and Placement Officer without any interference from any one. He was discharging his duties and responsibilities of the post as specified in the Advertisement. He stated that on 15th May 1985, the present Director of the Institute formed the Committee known as `Training and Placement Committee as per the decision of the meeting of the Head of Department / Centres held on 24th April 1985. The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 7 Petitioner was appointed as a Member-
Secretary of the said Committee personally to hold a first meeting of the Committee.
The first meeting was held on 18th July 1985.
He stated that he was a Member-Secretary and terms of reference for consideration of the Committee were placed by him. However, nothing specifically was decided during next two successive meetings and, therefore, the Director issued two office orders. Placing reliance upon the Minutes of the Committee meeting, he stated that activities of the Training and Placement Division have been highlighted in the Annual Reports. He submits that only three meetings were held of the Committee and it is not as if he was, in any way, guilty of violation of that orders or directives. He gave his detailed explanation with regard to the other charges and stated that the duties of the post,to which he was appointed, have been performed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 8 in the past as well by Professors. Rather they were Senior Professors of the Institute. Prior to this appointment, even the Petitioner was Professor and Head of Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Goa. He relied upon the Minutes of the faculty meeting of I.I.T., Mumbai, dated 19th October 1974, item No.2 page No.2, item No.7 page No.4 and stated that designation and nature of duties would show that he has rightly been termed as a Professor and that is how even official stamp made by him reads. In such circumstances, it is not as if he has falsely held out himself as a Professor.
5. It is his case that the 1st Respondent ignored his explanation and the factual position in the record and wrongfully accepted the inquiry Report and proposed a penalty of Removal. He submits that even ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 9 the penalty proposed was challenged by the Petitioner inasmuch as he filed a Reply to the Show Cause Notice issued to him in that regard. Yet, ignoring the explanation, he came to be removed from services.
Subsequently, his Appeal also has been dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by ig these orders, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Upon the Petition being served, a Reply Affidavit came to be filed by the Respondents. They raised a plea that the Petitioner has falsely stated that he was a Professor. In fact, he was working as an Assistant Professor even at the Goa Engineering College in Mechanical Engineering Department. He was never a Professor thereat and that is a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 10 clarification given by that Institution as well. In such circumstances, the Petitioner cannot claim to be a Professor. All other contentions and grounds in the Writ Petition have been specifically dealt with and denied in the Affidavit filed on 8th of June 1990.
8. It appears that ig this Writ Petition was placed earlier before the Court for hearing and final disposal on 30th September 2003, at which point of time, it was noticed that the Petitioner filed a statutory Appeal before the President of India. The Petitioner pointed out that his Appeal has been decided but he has not challenged the order in that behalf. In these circumstances, he was permitted to amend the Petition and challenge that order. Thereafter the Petition has been placed for hearing and final disposal.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 119. The first contention of the Petitioner is that the impugned orders are vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.
He submits that the orders are in clear breach and violation of the I.I.T. Act and the I.I.T. Bombay Statutes, 1962. Further, the Respondents have committed a breach of the Central ig Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, concerning conduct of the domestic / departmental inquiry. He submits that there is no substance in any of the charges inasmuch as the resolution passed in the Fourth Committee meeting of Council of I.I.Ts held on 6th of October 1964 at New Delhi would show that the designation, status and position of Training and Placement Officers in all I.I.Ts along with their qualification, experience, nature of duties and responsibilities, scales / grade of pay and so on is something which could not have been ignored. He submits that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 12 penalties have been imposed by Authorities not competent to do so in terms of the relevant statutory provisions.
10. The Petitioner submits that in the grounds mentioned in the Writ Petition so also in the amended pleas, he has pointed out as to how the entire inquiry is vitiated and the orders so also the penalty are contrary to law. He further submits that there is a breach and violation of the principles of natural justice. The Authorities have acted unfairly, arbitrarily and unreasonably. He also submits that the Inquiry Officer in her report held that all the charges are duly proved. He submits that the Show Cause Notice dated 4th January 1989 is issued by the Director. The Petitioner urged that the Statutes of I.I.T. provide for various matters. Statute 13 provides for terms and conditions of the permanent employees.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 13Clauses (10), (11) and (12) of Statute 13 provide remedy to the aggrieved staff member to prefer Appeal to the Board or to the Appellate Authority. He submits that the orders dated 29th January 1991 and 4th February 1991 are non-speaking orders and do not indicate as to why the Petitioner s Appeal has been ig rejected. Further, these orders are passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The merits of the matter were not taken into consideration. He submits that he has been suffering for the past more than 18 years and this is a clear case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned orders.
11. The Petitioner in addition to making oral submissions has handed in a synopsis of Dates and events and a compilation of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 14 Documents so also written arguments. He has highlighted the plea of incompetence of the Authorities in initiating the action and imposing punishment. He has also raised certain financial claims and has highlighted his health problems therein.
12. On the other ig hand, Mr.Patel appearing for the Respondents contended before us that the charges have been proved. The Petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself at the inquiry. The Petitioner was given also an opportunity to take inspection of the relevant documents and other records.
The Petitioner was given complete opportunity to place such material as he desired in his defence. The inquiry was thus held in compliance with the procedural rules so also General Principles of fairness and reasonableness. There is no substance in the grievance that principles of natural ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 15 justice have been violated. He submits that the Inquiry Officer was an independent person unconnected with the affairs of the Institute. Further, the Disciplinary as also the Appellate Authorities have carefully considered all pleas raised by the Petitioner but found no merit in them.
Mr.Patel submits
ig that the Institute is a
highly reputed academic body. Its affairs
are in the hands of experts in
administration and related fields. It is
not as if the entire Administrative
machinery was against the Petitioner. Once,
in such academic bodies the atmosphere of
learning and intellect as also Excellency
are to be promoted and preserved, then, the Authorities were compelled to act against the Petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner was all throughout violating the office orders. He did not perform the duties assigned to him in a spirit of co-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 16operation with the Management. He was adamant and insisted upon holding himself out as a full time Professor. He would make capital of some letters addressed to him from some bodies and on that basis, urged that he is a Professor. In these circumstances and by misinterpreting and misreading certain ig documents, he projected himself to be a senior member of the teaching faculty.
13. Mr.Patel was at pains to point out that there is no infirmity in the proceedings or the orders. The inquiry has been initiated by competent Authorities. Similarly, the Disciplinary Authority is also the competent forum. The Statutes have not been violated but have been fully adhered to. It cannot be said that somebody has usurped powers and imposed penalties arbitrarily and deliberately. There is no substance in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 17 contention with regard to the mala fides. In these circumstances, the Court should not interfere in its writ jurisdiction.
14. Both sides have relied upon a number of decisions. However, in one recent decision in the case of Niraj Kumar Singh vs. Union Bank of India & anr. reported in 2008 (2) Bom. C.R. 237, to which one of us (Hon ble the Chief Justice) was a party, the settled principles have been reiterated. Suffice it to make a reference to the following observations of the Division Bench in the decision in Niraj Kumar Singh s case (supra):-
8. The first and the foremost question that has to be answered by the Court is whether the grounds taken by the petitioner while impugning the order of dismissal are the one which would fall within the scope of judicial review in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the grounds that have been taken by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 18 the petitioner are primarily based upon appreciation and/or reappreciation of the evidence. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal on fact and law. The order essentially must be one which is perverse, not supported by any evidence or of the nature where statutory regulations have been violated, that too, to the prejudice of the delinquent officer. None of these conditions are satisfied in the present case. The concerned authorities had examined the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges.
Upon considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the authorities imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 28th February, 2007, against which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 4th June, 2007, by giving cogent and proper reasoning. The order of the Appellate Authority has been based upon due application of mind and after consideration of the various contentions raised by the petitioner.
It is well settled that the order of Dismissal or Removal of an Employee must be made by an Authority not Subordinate to the Appointing Authority. It ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 19 does not require that the order initiating the Inquiry or the Inquiry itself must be made by the Appointing Authority himself or by some person, not Subordinate to him (Article 311(1) of the Constitution). It is equally settled that in such cases prejudice or failure of Justice must be proved.
15. Further, there is another principle, which is equally well settled, namely, that when an Authority higher than the Disciplinary Authority itself imposes the punishment, the order of punishment suffers from no illegality, when no appeal is provided to such Authority.
However, when an Appeal is provided to the higher Authority concerned against the order of the Disciplinary Authority or of a lower Authority and the higher Authority passed the order of punishment, the employee concerned is deprived of the remedy of Appeal which is a substantive right given to him by the rules / ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 20 regulations. An employee cannot be deprived of his substantive right. [See : AIR 1995 SC page 1053 at page 1055 (Para-5) Surjit Ghosh vs. Chairman and Managing Director United Commercial Bank & ors.]
16.We have to apply these principles while considering the reliefs sought in the present Petition. Since the Petitioner is appearing in person and he has been removed from the services of Respondent No.1, we have carefully considered the rival contentions. We have also perused the Petition and all annexures thereto, including the impugned orders.
17.The first contention of the Petitioner is that the inquiry is initiated and the charge-sheet is issued by an incompetent Authority. He does not dispute the Competence of the Disciplinary or the Punishing Authority. This point was raised even during the course of the inquiry.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 21Before the Inquiry Officer the relevant provisions of law and statutes applicable were relied upon. In paragraph 17 (internal page 22 running page 168) this very contention was urged. The Inquiry Officer has perused the appointment letter, the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, the Statutes and Rules of Institute in force ig from time to time and concluded that there is no substance in the objection of the Petitioner that the Director could not have issued the charge-sheet.
18.A perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the Petitioner was placed firstly under suspension and thereafter Memorandum was issued charging him with misconduct. That is signed by the Director.
19.The position of the Director, as far as Respondent No.1 is concerned, is undisputed.
Mr.Patel is right in his contention that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 22 inquiry has been initiated by a competent Authority. The Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, as amended from time to time, in Section 3 defines the term Board , in relation to any Institute, to mean the Board of Governors thereof. The term Chairman is defined to mean the Chairman of the Board. Section 9 in categorical terms states that the President of India shall be the visitor of every Institute.
The Authorities of the Institute are set out in Section 10. One of the Authorities is the Board of Governors, the other is a Senate and thereafter such other Authorities as may be declared by the Statute to be the Authorities of the Institute. The composition of Board of Governors is set out in Section 11 and the Director is part of the same. [See : Section 11
(b)]. The terms of office and other provisions with regard to the Board are found in Section 12 and the functions of the Board are in Section 13. While it is true that the Board of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 23 any Institute shall be responsible for the general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Institute and shall exercise all powers of the Institute but Section 13(1) itself makes an exception and states that the responsibility of superintendence, direction and control etc. as above, if provided for otherwise by the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, then, such functions can be performed by the persons contemplated thereunder. Thus, the broad functions and more particularly policy matters are to be performed by the Board, whereas day to day administration and management can be carried out by others. The composition of the Senate and its functions are not of much relevance to the present Petition. Section 16 provides for a Chairman of the Board and his duties. Section 17 is relevant for our purpose and is reproduced hereinbelow:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 2417.(1) The Director of each Institute shall be appointed by the Council with the prior approval of the Visitor.
(2) The Director shall be the principal academic and executive officer of the Institute and shall be responsible for the proper administration of the Institute and for the imparting of instruction and maintenance of discipline therein.
(3)igThe Director shall submit annual reports and accounts to the Board.
(4) The Director shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by this Act or the statutes or Ordinances.
20.A bare perusal of the same would indicate that the Director of each of the Institute shall be appointed by the Council with prior approval of the visitor and importantly the Director shall be the principal academic and executive officer of the Institute and shall be responsible for the proper administration of the Institute and for imparting of instructions and maintenance ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 25 of discipline therein. He can exercise such powers and perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Act or Statutes or Ordinances. Section 27 deals with the Statutes, whereas Section 28 provides for Ordinances. The composition of the Council is in Section 31.
21.As far as
the powers of the Director are
concerned, the Statutes in that behalf are
clear. Statute 13 confers the powers on the
Director to place any member of the staff under suspension and he can exercise such powers where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. As far as the position of competent Authority is concerned, the Conduct Rules (Schedule-B) states that as far as the Director is concerned, the Board of Governors would be the competent Authority, whereas the Director himself is the competent Authority in case of other employees.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 2622.On a combined reading of the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Conduct Rules in relation to the status and powers of the Director and the extent of his authority, there is no hesitation in concluding that the complaint of the Petitioner with regard to the competence of the person initiating the inquiry and issuing charge-sheet is devoid of any substance. The Inquiry Officer is right in the conclusion that the Director was the competent Authority as far as the Petitioner is concerned and had full powers to issue the charge-sheet and initiate the inquiry.
23. In the case of South Central Railway Employees Co-op. Society vs. Labour Court & ors. reported in 1983-I L.L.J. 469 (judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court)relied upon by the Petitioner, on facts, the Andhra Pradesh High Court concluded ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 27 that the act of the Secretary in issuing charge-sheet is illegal inasmuch as there is no delegation of power by the employer to the Secretary. In these circumstances, and noting the undisputed factual position that the conclusion with regard to the competence of the Authority has been arrived at by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This decision is clearly distinguishable and would not apply to the facts of the present case.
24. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan reported in AIR 1989 SC page 1582, the facts were that the Vice Chancellor sought to initiate proceedings against Mr.Chavan after the competent Authority, namely, the Academic Council / Senate closed the proceedings and exonerated Mr.Chavan. In that context, it is held that the Vice Chancellor has no such power nor could he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 28 resort to his powers to deal with any emergent situation and take the Impugned action. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the objection with regard to the competency of the Vice Chancellor to impose punishment by referring to the Act and Statute in Question.
Once again, the distinction with regard to the position of the Authority in this case and in our case, must be noticed and if due cognizance is taken thereof, then, even this decision is distinguishable.
25.In the above circumstances, we see no substance in this contention of the Petitioner.
26.The other contention raised by the Petitioner is with regard to the conduct of the inquiry and it being vitiated for non-observance of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, we have to apply the settled principles that this is not a Court of Appeal and we cannot go ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 29 into the conclusions drawn by the competent Authorities by appreciating and re-appreciating the material. If the conclusions drawn are consistent with the materials produced and based on some evidence, then, this Court cannot interfere. Unless, it is demonstrated that the conclusions are totally perverse or that no reasonable person would arrive at the same, the Writ Court cannot interfere in disciplinary matters.
27.Applying this test to the instant case, we find that the charge-sheet is specific and not vague and ambiguous. The Petitioner s acts have been referred to in details and for such specific acts of omission and commission that the charge-sheet has been issued. The charge-
sheet outlines the misconduct of the Petitioner in the context of the position that he held in the Institute, his duties and functions and the conduct that was expected from a person in such ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 30 position. He has been charged with misconduct by referring to the acts on his part in the backdrop of the Conduct Rules. We do not see how such a charge-sheet can be termed as vague.
After carefully perusing the charge-sheet, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner was informed of the charges levelled and the allegations made in clearest terms.
ig He was
aware of the charges that he has to meet. The
articles of charge are neither vague nor
ambiguous, as alleged. The Petitioner is, in no way, prejudiced and having participated in the inquiry so also availed of all opportunities to defend himself, it is no longer open to him to complain and urge that the charge-sheet is vague and ambiguous. There is no substance in this contention.
28.As far as the conduct of inquiry is concerned, this is a case where the Inquiry Officer, who was an independent Authority, permitted both ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 31 sides to place all such materials as are permissible in law during the course of the inquiry. The Petitioner produced several documents and the Inquiry Officer has taken them on record. Similarly, whenever documents were sought to be placed by the Management, the Inquiry Officer has taken care to ensure that the same are made available to the Petitioner in advance so that the Petitioner can meet the contents thereof. So also, the documents, the contents of which have been proved, are only marked in evidence and considered by the Inquiry Officer. [See : Paragraph 6 of the Inquiry Report]. Further, when the additional documents were placed before the Inquiry Officer, both sides stated that they would rely only on handful of them. Therefore, now, it is not open to the Petitioner to urge that the inquiry was unfair or vitiated for non-
observance of the principles of equity, justice and fair play.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 3229.This is not a case where there is no evidence.
The charges were indeed serious. One cannot lose sight of the fact that this is an academic Institution. The academic atmosphere so also the spirit of learning and pursuit of excellence is the hallmark of such Institutions. ig Therefore, any act, which adversely affects maintenance of academic and disciplinary standards, is bound to be viewed seriously. The principal charge against the Petitioner was that he proclaimed to everybody that he was a Professor at I.I.T. This is belied by the appointment letter which clearly states that he is appointed as Training and Placement Officer. Merely because in some letters and rubber stamp the Petitioner is described as a Professor does not mean that the Petitioner s designation is the same. From the records that were produced during the course of inquiry and the oral evidence of Professor ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 33 Sharma, it is evident that the Petitioner was performing duties as a Training and Placement Officer. These duties are to co-ordinate between the Institute and several Placement Agencies and Organizations which are inclined to recruit candidates from a prestigious Institution such as Indian Institute of Technology. From ig several Companies and Corporations, Reputed Experts and officers are visiting the Institute and the Petitioner was to act as a co-ordinator and assist the Institute so also the students in obtaining appropriate placements. By no stretch of imagination, can he be termed as a Professor considering the predominant nature of his functions and duties. Merely because he was taking some lectures and classes does not mean that he was a Professor or designated as such.
If that was to be the case, there was no occasion for the Petitioner to rely upon his status in the Goa Engineering College.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 34However, correspondence with the said College showed that the Petitioner has misled the Respondents before us. The Petitioner was appointed not as a Professor there but worked as an Assistant Professor which is more or less a comparable post to the Appointment made in Respondent No.1. In such circumstances, how the Petitioner could have held himself out to be a Professor is not clear to us at all. On the other hand, the Inquiry Officer has rightly concluded that the Petitioner was not appointed as the Professor but as a Training and Placement Officer.
30.The desperate attempt made by the Petitioner to prove that he was a Professor during the course of the inquiry also did not meet with any success. In the teeth of the advertisement preceding the appointment of the Petitioner so also the letter of acceptance and the other documents placed by the Institute, it became ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 35 apparent that the Petitioner was not appointed as a Professor. He was warned consistently by none other than Prof. A.K. De and Prof. R.E. Bedford not to use as prefix the word `Professor on his letter-head. The Petitioner s desperation and frustration is apparent because his next attempt was to show that even though he was working in the Training and Placement Department as an officer, he is a Head of the said Department. He termed the Training and Placement Department into a distinct and separate division with a view to buttress his submissions. Even that is not substantiated by the records. The records indicate that there are no Divisions but Training and Placement Department is like any other department. Such departments are also in other I.I.Ts and that is not disputed by the Petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the contention that charge Nos.2 and 3 have not been proved.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 3631.The conclusion of the Inquiry Officer that the Petitioner himself had admitted that his initial appointment in the college of Engineering, Goa, was that of Assistant Professor cannot be faulted as the Inquiry Officer relied ig upon the statement of the Petitioner during the course of his evidence.
The Petitioner admitted that he was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Goa Engineering College and he only officiated as Professor for some time. Therefore, the attempt to mislead the Institute is clear. This was not expected from an academic functionary like the Petitioner. Once the Authorities concluded that the attempt is to mislead and misguide not only them but the entire academic world, then, their action in proceeding departmentally against the Petitioner and holding him guilty cannot be faulted. The extent to which the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 37 Petitioner went to prove his case is apparent when he relied upon letter-heads and visiting cards. At the cost of repetition, it must be said that the Petitioner was frustrated in not being given the responsibilities and duties of a Professor. However, coming from an academic field, he ought to have been aware of the fact that there are ig distinct functions and jobs which are to be performed in even academic bodies. It is not as if the posts are designated nominally or ornamentally. There are distinct functions and duties to be performed and once it is undisputed that a Training and Placement Officer is not a Professor, then, the charge has been rightly held to be proved.
32.The insubordination of the Petitioner and the acts that are attributed to him, as far as charge No.1 is concerned, have also been proved. On the basis of documents and oral evidence, the Inquiry Officer has concluded ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 38 that the Petitioner went to the extent of disobeying the decisions and resolutions of the Training and Placement Committee. Since the Petitioner was not fulfilling the task assigned to him to the satisfaction of the Authorities, they took a decision to appoint a Training and Placement Committee and the Petitioner was appointed as a Member-Secretary of the same.
Prof. S.P. Sharma, working in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, was appointed as a Chairman of this Committee and five other Professors were the members. This Committee took decisions and issued directions from time to time which should have been implemented by all concerned and rather it was the duty of the Petitioner to oversee the implementation.
Instead, agitated by the fact that the Committee had been appointed and that he would have to report to it, the Petitioner not only did not carry out the functions assigned to him but prepared Minutes of the Committee meeting ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 39 and without approval of the Chairman, circulated the same. There are several such Committees appointed to co-ordinate the work and to achieve better results and being a responsible officer, the Petitioner should have acted in accordance with the wishes of the Board and other Authorities. Ultimately, such decisions are taken ig in academic interest by body of experts. Their wisdom could not have been questioned beyond a limit even by the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner more often had not tried to impose his views on the Institute by disregarding and ignoring the Committee. In fact, it is proved that he went to the extent of introducing certain items in the agenda of the meeting of the Committee without in any manner taking the Chairman and Committee members into confidence. Further, he did not bother to have the Minutes of the meeting confirmed. In these circumstances, when bypassing the Committee certain ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 40 communications are issued, then, there was no alternative for the Chairman of the Committee but to bring such acts of the Petitioner to the notice of the higher Authorities. Precisely, this is done and that is how the charge is levelled. Considering the materials produced, it is rightly concluded that the charge is proved.
33.The other charges are equally serious and the Petitioner was held guilty of using impertinent language and showing scant regard. His conduct depicts lack of decency and decorum. The language used by him was not only rude but very irresponsible. It was unbecoming of a senior officer. In his correspondence, he commented upon the academic competence of even his superiors adversely. Even if one is agitated and disturbed while working in academic bodies and institutions, the language should not be harsh and insulting to others. It leaves a bad ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 41 impression not only on the staff members but the students. Ultimately, the reputation of the institution is at stake. If such language is permitted to be used freely in correspondence and speech, overall Academic atmosphere is polluted and vitiated. Having perused some of the letters, which are referred to by the Inquiry Officer, we are of the view that there was enough material to conclude that the Petitioner was discourteous and the language used by him was indecent. If there was lack of infrastructure or reading and research materials and the Petitioner s grievances were indeed genuine, he should not have addressed complaint letters in intemperate and abusive language. There is no reason to taunt or insult anybody as ultimately one works for the betterment of the institute and for benefit of the students. If that aspect is to be placed in the forefront, then, it is necessary to control one s emotions and temper while working ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 42 collectively. Precisely, this is lost sight of by the Petitioner and that is why the charge had to be levelled. It is proved by reading of the letters which are undisputedly addressed by the Petitioner to his superiors and others.
34.Even when he filed his Appeal, the grounds in the Memorandum of Appeal would show that the Petitioner has no control over himself and can resort to harsh language easily. He exhibits complete lack of Restraint and his Conduct reflected his Adamant and Uncompromising Attitude. There is no remorse and he was never ready to apologise.
35.It would be sufficient if one reproduces his reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, while accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer. This is what he says in paragraph 11 of his reply:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 43Apart from the substantive explanation given above for each of the specific alleged charges mentioned hereto-fore the respondent employee also desires to make the legal submissions. The respondent employee submits that the appointment of the inquiry Officer itself is bad in law and more so appointing an advocate practising in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay itself shows that the inquiry Officer was neither free from her bias in favour of the Employer nor from prejudices implanted by the Employer. Admittedly the interest of any inquiry officer is to protect the management who appointed her/him in the light of potential benefits implied and accrued by taking the side of the management. The Respondent employee has learnt that the learned inquiry Officer was paid the sum of Rs.1500/- per day for actual hearing or a part of the said amount for an adjournment and/or part hearing of the said matter and that the learned inquiry Officer has received a fabulous money for continuing the said inquiry on one pretext or another for a long period of 27 months violating CCS (CCA) Rules in force and not making it public until the delinquent employee had to approach the highest judicial authority in the State which unfortunately appears to be the only hope, though not ultimate, so to secure final decision in favour of justice. As regards the mundane matters, the Learned inquiry Officer was provided with rich lunch in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 44 unique campus guest house and was provided with spacious car at her disposal. It is difficult to resist the influence attached with such an office in favour of an employer and need not be just as long as these ensure future appointment and actual and potential benefits attached to such appointments. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the Learned inquiry Officer has prepared her inquiry report on the basis of predetermined conclusion, assumptions and presumptions not warranted or proved without evidence and without testing the material record from an objective and just stand point. Apart from the averments made above by the respondent employee the disciplinary authority on the basis of this approach of inquiry Officer should have considered the worth of the report and rejected it delimining the offing but it has taken the same one sided approach, and decided to award the punishment of removal from service.
36.If such is the level to which the Petitioner condescends, then, one can imagine how difficult it would have been for his colleagues and superiors to work with him at the institute. We have no hesitation in concluding ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 45 that the charges in this behalf are proved.
None of the allegations that the Petitioner has made against the Inquiry Officer or other Authorities have been proved. He had used harsh words and expressions but was unable to substantiate his Allegations throughout.
37.Even charge
ig Nos.7 and 8 with regard to
willfully absenting from duty on 4th of April 1986 and creating situation for his own financial benefits, have been proved. It is held that there was no occasion for the Petitioner to have gone to the establishment of M/s.Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd. when he was fully aware that Executives of Electronics, Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, were visiting the institute for campus interviews of the students on the very same day. That means leaving the campus without prior permission of the Authorities nor their knowledge and it has been proved by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 46 evidence of Prof. Sharma. The embarrassment that it caused to Mr.Sharma, the Committee and the Institute, as a whole, because there was nobody to attend to the Executives of the Corporation on the relevant date can be very well imagined. The charge is not fanciful. It has a clear basis and `Stands conclusively proved. The Petitioner ig did not act in the Interests of the Institution and was rather responsible for the chaos and loss of Reputation, on that day.
38.The last charge with regard to financial benefits and gains in holding lectures has been proved by not only the documents produced but by the testimony of Prof. Sethuraman, who has been examined as witness by the Petitioner himself. The conclusions, on charge No.8, drawn by the Inquiry Officer in paragraph 27 of the inquiry Report are based on these materials and, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 4739.In the result, we are of the view that the inquiry is not vitiated, as alleged and more specifically on the grounds and pleas raised before us. Lastly, we do not find any substance in the contention of the Petitioner with regard to the punishment imposed on him. It is not as if the Petitioner ig has been victimized or harassed, as falsely contended by him. The Petitioner was warned of the consequences resulting from his irresponsible conduct. Yet, he persisted. When there was no alternative, a charge-sheet was issued and inquiry was held.
Once the inquiry was held and the charges were proved, considering their seriousness and the standards which are required to be maintained in reputed and prestigious institutions like Indian Institute of Technology, the punishment of removal from service was imposed. We do not find that punishment is, in any way, excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable so as to call for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 ::: 48 interference in writ jurisdiction. More so, when the same has been maintained in Appeal as well. Merely because the Appellate Authority has not analysed and Appraised the Material to the Satisfaction of the Petitioner does not mean that it has not performed the Duty in law in this case. It has broadly indicated the reasons for its Agreement with the Disciplinary Authority.
40.As a result of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Rule is discharged but without any order as to costs.
[CHIEF JUSTICE] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:49:20 :::