Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maharana Pratap University & Anr vs Dr. A.K. Kurchania on 7 April, 2017
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, G.R. Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 810 / 2016
1. Maharana Pratap Universtiy of Agriculture & Technology,
Udaipur Through Its Registrar
2. The Vice Chancellor, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture
& Technology, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Dr A.K. Kurchania S/o Late Shri Vasudev Prasad Kurchania, B/c
Brahmin, R/o 27/2, Vinayak Nagar, Bohra Ganesh Ji Road,
Udaipur.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh
Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet
Dave and Mr. Deepak Chandak
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas Date of Judgment :: 7th April, 2017 In this special appeal, the appellant Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the appellant University for short) has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent to quashed the charge-sheet dated 20.9.2008, corrigendum dated 23.10.2008 and impugned order dated 28.1.2011 has been allowed.
(2 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] As per brief facts of the case, the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in the Mohan Lal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur on 4.9.1986. The Mohan Lal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur was bifurcated on 1.7.1987 and new University known as "Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner"
was created, therefore, the services of respondent-writ petitioner came to be transferred to the said University. The Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner was further bifurcated in the year 1989 and new University known as "Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, University" was created and the respondent-writ petitioner became employee of the appellant University.
The University Grants Commission formulated a scheme for grant of promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as CAS for short). Therefore, exercise for granting promotion under CAS was initiated by the appellant University in the year 2001. On 6.12.2001 the list of Associate Professors eligible for grant of promotion under CAS was published. Since the respondent-writ petitioner was eligible for promotion under CAS, he submitted his candidature for grant of promotion under CAS while submitting proforma. As per the criteria, there was some requirements of promotion under CAS to the post of Professor including condition to submit three best contribution publication alongwith proforma before the selection committee, therefore, respondent-writ petitioner submitted his details in proforma mentioning three best written contributions (3 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] and found to be eligible for consideration for promotion on the post of Professor under the scheme. He was asked to sent three extra sets of the best written contributions enclosed by him alongwith proforma which he complied by him.
As per appellant-University during the selection process, the respondent-writ petitioner came to know that three contributions referred by him were not published, therefore, on the date of interview, he presented the other three best written contributions, which were published before the statutory selection committee.
The respondent-writ petitioner was selected by the selection committee under the CAS and promoted as "Professor" in the Department of Renewable Energy Sources vide order dated 22.11.2001. After seven years, a complaint was filed against the respondent-writ petitioner by the unsuccessful candidate, who appeared before the selection committee for the post of Professor.
After seven years on 12.5.2008, the appellant University asked the respondent-writ petitioner to submit details of three papers submitted by him before the statutory committee at the time of interview. The respondent-writ petitioner submitted his explanation, thereafter, on 22.5.2008, a show cause notice was served upon to submit copies of the re-prints of three best contributions mentioned in the proforma within the period of three days, failing which it was informed that disciplinary action would be initiated against him. The respondent-writ petitioner submit his reply to show cause, however, the disciplinary action was initiated by the appellant University against him by issuing a (4 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] memorandum of charge-sheet dated 20.9.2008 under Rule 99 of the MPUAT Teachers and Officers Service Conditions and Rules, 2000, which provides for imposition of major penalty against the delinquent-employee. Thereafter, some correspondence took place in between the appellant University and the respondent-writ petitioner and ultimately, Dr. S.C. Bhandari was appointed as inquiry officer, who submitted his inquiry report on 15.9.2009 in which a finding was given that respondent-writ petitioner has misguided the University by supplying false and fake information for availing benefit of promotion on the post of Professor under CAS. The Vice Chancellor of the appellant University did not accept the said inquiry report and remanded the case to conduct fresh inquiry and since Dr. S.C. Bhandari was retired, therefore, Dr. (Mrs.) Maya Choudhary was appointed as inquiry officer.
Since Dr. Maya Choudhary did not submit inquiry report in time, therefore, Dr. Virendra Kumar Shrivastava, Director, Planning and Monetary of the appellant University was appointed as an inquiry officer to reconduct the inquiry vide order dated 14.7.2010, but Dr. Shrivastava was requested to relieve him from the inquiry because delinquent officer personally was known to him, the Vice Chancellor again appointed Dr. Maya Choudhary as inquiry officer to conduct inquiry. Thereafter, Dr. Maya Choudhary submitted inquiry report on 31.8.2008. On receiving the inquiry report, it was forwarded to the respondent-writ petitioner under Rule 103 (Xii) (a) of the Service and Conduct Rules of Teachers and Officers of the University asking him to file his (5 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] explanation, if any.
The respondent-writ petitioner submitted his reply on 23.9.2010 and denied all the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority granted personal hearing to the respondent- writ petitioner on 15.12.2010, passed the impugned order dated 28.1.2008 and punished him with the punishment of reversion from the post of Professor to the post of Associate Professor forthwith and further ordered that pay and allowances drawn by him as a consequence to promotion under CAS may be recovered.
Against aforesaid chargesheet and impugned order, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred writ petition being challenged the order of reversion. The learned Single Judger allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner vide judgment dated 31.5.2016 and quashed the charge sheet, so also the order of punishment.
In this appeal filed by the University, the said judgment is under challenge.
Learned counsel for the appellant University vehemently argued that it is a case in which the promotion was obtained on the basis of false information furnished by the respondent-writ petitioner with regard to the publication of his best papers, which is ultimately after inquiry found to be false. It is also obvious from the record of that the proceedings that those three best papers, mentioned by him in the performa of application form were published, therefore, it is a case in which while submitting (6 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] false information with regard to publication, the respondent-writ petitioner has obtained promotion, therefore, the action was taken upon complaint made by the unsuccessful candidate after holding departmental inquiry under the Rules, but the learned Single Judge committed an error to quash the charge-sheet as well as the impugned order of reversion based upon appreciation of evidence collected by the inquiry officer in which the finding was given that the respondent-writ petitioner has committed serious misconduct to submit false information with regard to publication of his papers so as to get benefit of promotion, therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge to quash the order of punishment is totally erroneous and contrary to the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer. Therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.
Per contra, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner assisted by Advocate Mr. Vineet Dave, submits that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge to quash the charge sheet as well as punishment order because entire proceedings deserves to be vitiated on account of delay. Undisputedly, the respondent-writ petitioner was accorded promotion under CAS in the year 2001 after due selection but after a period of 7 years, proceedings were initiated by the University upon complaint filed by the unsuccessful candidates, therefore, the learned Single Judge while accepting the plea of the respondent-writ petitioner gave finding in para no.16 of the judgment that there has been a delay in (7 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] initiating departmental inquiry against the respondent-writ petitioner, that too, on the basis of complaint of unsuccessful candidates received against the respondent-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge gave finding that on account of delay, the respondent-writ petitioner was unable to get an adequate response from the organizers of the Conference. A delay in holding of an inquiry always cause great prejudice to the employee as has been done in the present case and in his appeal there is no challenge to said finding of the learned Single Judge, therefore, on this count alone, the instant special appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that as a matter of fact, for promotion of the candidate under the CAS, in the proforma, three best contributions were required to be considered for assessment and the respondent-writ petitioner submitted four papers for consideration, out of which, two papers were published and two papers were accepted for publication at a Congress to be held in Dec., 2001. The respondent-writ petitioner submitted research papers for consideration on contribution at S.No.1 and 2, a categorical statement was made in performa that those papers are accepted for publication at international congress on Humanising work and work environment to be held on Dec., 11-14, 2001. Therefore, obviously, there is no misrepresentation of false information because that papers are published and in the inquiry conducted by Dr. S.C. Bhandari it is reported that the respondent-writ petitioner was guilty in submitting false and fake information of the selection (8 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] committee in order to get promotion to the post of Professor but the learned Vice Chancellor by an order dated 3.3.2010 held that the inquiry report is lacking reference of the proceedings of the selection committee and remanded the matter back for conducting fresh inquiry and Mrs. Maya Choudhary was appointed as inquiry officer with direction to conduct re-inquiry and submit her finding on each charge after proper evaluation of the charge thereto.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in spite of the direction no fresh inquiry was conducted and while relying upon finding given by Dr. S.C. Bhandari which was already set aside by the Vice Chancellor, the inquiry officer, without conducting inquiry afresh gave conclusion that University should be more objective, strict and vigilant in future and no conclusion was given by the Inquiry Officer Mrs. Maya Choudhary, against respondent petitioner. It is also very important to note that no evidence whatsoever was lead by the University in support of its case, no witness was produced whereas there is sufficient material on record in support of the contentions raised by the respondent- writ petitioner to show that no false statement was made by him. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned order on the ground that there was gross delay in initiating proceedings and further held that in spite of clear cut direction by the Vice Chancellor no fresh inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer Dr. Maya Choudhary, so also, no finding is given by Dr. Maya Choudhary that any false information has been given to get benefit of promotion, therefore, there is no question (9 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] to interfere in the judgment impugned.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire record of the writ petition and judgment impugned. It is obvious from the judgment that learned Single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter including question of delay in initiating proceedings upon complained filed after seven years by the unsuccessful candidate against the respondent-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge observed in the judgment that in the re-inquiry conducted by Dr. Maya Choudhary there is no specific finding to this effect and the report of inquiry conducted by Dr. S.C. Bhandari was already set aside by the Vice Chancellor himself, but the learned Vice Chancellor while relying upon the report of the inquiry officer and acknowledgement of the respondent- writ petitioner that papers had not been published, held the respondent-writ petitioner guilty for submitting wrong information to get benefit of CAS. The learned Single Judge observed that in the conclusion arrived at, there is no specific finding of Dr. Maya Choudhary that any false information was submitted by the respondent- writ petitioner, therefore, order is not sustainable in law. We have perused the inquiry report (Annex.32) in which it is obvious that inspite of direction, no fresh inquiry was conducted by Dr.Maya Choudhary. More so, she relied upon documents pertaining to the inquiry and the report submitted by Dr. S.C. Bhandari, the previous inquiry officer. There is no recommendation of the inquiry officer for taking any action against the respondent-writ petitioner, upon alleged misconduct.
(10 of 10) [SAW-810/2016] In addition to above findings, we have perused the criteria prescribed for promotion on the post of Professor under CAS, available on record in Annex.37. in the criteria, it is nowhere prescribed that the best three written contributions of the teacher should be published. The only requirement is that the candidate should present himself/herself before the selection committee with some of the following which includes three best written contributions., meaning thereby, it is a case in which without application of mind upon complaint made by unsuccessful candidate after seven years, the action was taken, that too, without perusing the eligibility criteria. It is also emerges from the facts that inspite of direction by the Vice Chancellor for re-inquiry after quashing inquiry report of Dr. S.C. Bhandari, no fresh inquiry was conducted, more so, again finding of the inquiry of Dr. S.C. Bhandari was taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer Dr. Maya Choudhary and relied upon by the Vice Chancellor to punish the respondent-writ petitioner, which is not in consonance with law. In view of the aforesaid reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in quashing the charge- sheet and order of punishment for reversion of respondent-writ petitioner, passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 28.1.2011.
Consequently, there is no merit in this special appeal. Hence, dismissed.
(G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. cpgoyal/-ps