Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr. Arjun Singh Baloda S/O Late Shri ... vs Shri Karan Narendra Agricultural ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:43122]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11167/2025
Dr. Arjun Singh Baloda S/o Late Shri Suraj Bhan Singh, Aged
About 57 Years, Resident Of B-42, Jamnapuri, Murlipura
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Karan Narendra Agricultural University, Jobner,
Machhar Khani, Jaipur, Rajasthan 303329 Through Its
Vice Chancellor
2. The Registrar, Shri Karan Narendra Agricultural
University, Jobner, Machhar Khani, Jaipur, Rajasthan
303329
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shovit Jhajharia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
REPORTABLE
27/10/2025
1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner Dr. Arjun
Singh aggrieved from order dated 14.07.2025 whereby the
petitioner was dismissed from service by the Vice-Chancellor of
Sri Karan Narendra Agricultural University, Jobner, Jaipur
(hereinafter referred as "Univesity"), and for ready reference,
dismissal order dated 14.07.2025 is reproduced as under:
"Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z ds fo#) izkIr f"kdk;rksa ij
fo"ofo|ky; ds funs"kd foLrkj dh v/;{krk esa ,d tkap
lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;kA mDr lfefr }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ esa
Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z dk i{k tkuk ,oa lquk x;kA
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (2 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z dks mDr tkap lfefr us muds
i{k esa lk{; izLrqr djus dk Hkh leqfpr ekSdk fn;k ysfdu Mk-
vtqZu flag cykSnk }kjk mDr tkap desVh ds lkFk iw.kZ lg;ksx
ugha fd;k cfYd tks lk{; izLrqr fd, muesa ls dqN Mk- vtqZu
flagh cykSnk] vkpk;Z }kjk fjdkMZ esa gsjQsj djds dwVjfpr
djrs gq, izLrqr fd, x,A mDr tkap desVh us tkap fjiksVZ ds
}kjk Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z ds fo#) dqN vkjksi
izekf.kr ik, ,oa dqN esa Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z }kjk
lk{; miyC/k u djkdj vius vijk/k Nqikus dk iz;kl fd;k
tkuk mYysf[kr fd;kA
Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z ds fo#) xfBr tkap lfefr dh
mijksDr fjiksVZ dks v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk fo"ofo|ky; lrdZrk
izdks'B dks Hkstdj lrdZrk ijh{k.k funsZf"kr fd;kA blh chp
orZeku funs"kd] jktLFkku Ñf'k vuqla/kku laLFkku nqxkZiqjk }kjk
rRle; funs"kd] jktLFkku d`f'k vuqla/kku laLFkku nqxkZiqjk Mk-
vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z ds dk;Zdky esa jkjh nqxkZijqk dh
dqN Hkwfe & mlij cus LVªDpj lfgr& fcuk vf/kdkj@
vuqefr ,oa fcuk [kqyh fufonk ds viuh psgrh ulZjh dks 5 o'kZ
ds fy, 25-50 yk[k esa O;olkf;d xfrfof/k ds fy, fdjk, ij
miyC/k djkrs gq, fcuk vf/kdkfjrk ,o vkjVhVhih
vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;eksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq, djkj fd;kA jkT;
ljdkj ds ,d vfregRokdka{kh ifj;kstuk ds fy, egkeghe
xouZj ds gkFkksa f"kykU;kl fd, tk pqdh bl ifj;kstuk gsrq
tc mDr Hkwfe dh vko";drk gqbZ rks vukf/kd`r djkj ds rgr
dkfct mDr ulZjh lapkyd us fo"Ofo|ky; dh tehu ,oa
LVªDpjksa dks [kkyh djus dh ctk; ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa okn
nk;j djds mDr voS/k djkj dks vk/kkj cukdj LFkxu izkIr
dj fy;kA bl fcuk vf/kdkj ,oa fcuk vkjVhVhih
vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;eksa dh ikyuk fd, x, djkj ds ckcr
mijksDr ?kVukØe Hkh v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk fo"ofo|ky;
lrdZrk izdks'B dks Hkstdj lrdZrk ijh{k.k funsZf"kr fd;k
x;kA
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (3 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z ds fo:) fjiksVZ@vkjksi
v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk fo"ofo|ky; lrdZrk izdks'B dks Hkstdj
foLr`r lrdZrk ijh{k.k funsZf"kr fd;k x;kA mDr lrdZrk
ijh{k.k ds Øe esa lrdZrk izdks'B }kjk xgu lrdZrk ijh{k.k
vkjaHk dj Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z ds fo:)
vlwpuk ,oa lk{; ,d= djus dk dk;Z fd;k x;k ftlds Øe
esa funs'kd jkjh nqxkZiqj ds ekQZr Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z
ds lacU/k esa dqN tkudkjh pkgh xbZ rks funs'kd jkjh dks mDr
lwpuk miyC/k djkus ds ctk; Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z
us kedh Hkjs vatkn esa ;g Hkh fy[kk dh fo"ofo|ky; lrdZrk
izdks"B dks muds ckjs esa fo"ofo|ky; fjdkMZ ij miyC/k
tkudkjh vxj miyC/k djkbZ xbZ rks Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk]
vkpk;Z funs'kd jkjh ds fo:) vkfQfl;y lhdsV ,DV]
chu,l,] ch,u,l,l] fMftVy MsVk izksVsD'ku ,DV vkfn dbZ
lkjs dkuwuksa ds rgr dk;Zokgh djsaxsA Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk]
vkpk;Z ds bl rjg ds ve;kZfnr] vlg;ksxkRed ,oa
vkijkf/kd vkpj.k ds dkj.k fu'i{k tkap izHkkfor gksus ds
dkj.k fo"ofo|ky; vkns'k fnukad 09-06-2025 ds }kjk Mk-
vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z dks fuyfEcr djrs gq, mudk
eq[;ky; Ñf'k egkfo|ky; ukSxkao&vyoj fd;k x;k ysffdu
Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk fpfdRlk vodk"k ij pys x, vkSj blh
chp ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;qij esa ,d
fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 9383@2025 nk;j dj >wBs rF; is'k dj
vius fuyEcu vkns'k ij Lfkxu izkIr djus dk iz;kl fd;k
ysfdu fo"ofo|ky; }kjk dsfo,V ds dkj.k ;s mDr iz;kl esa
lQy ugha gq, rks bUgskaus bl Mj ls fd buds vijk/k ekuuh;
U;k;ky; ds fjdkMZ ij igqapus ds ckn mudh xaHkhjrk dks
ns[krs gq, ekuuh; U;k;ky; dgh Lo;a gh Mk- vtwqZu flag
cykSnk] vkpk;Z ds fo:) vkjksiksa dh tkap lhchvkbZ tSlh fdlh
Lora= tkap ,stsUlh dks ugha lkSai ns] Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk]
vkpk;Z us viuh fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls blh
fo"k; iju Hkfo"; esa vko";drkuqlkj iqu% ;kfpdk nk;j djus
dh NwV ds fuosnu ds lkFk okil ysus dk fuosnu fd;k ftl
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (4 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us bUgs mDr NwV u nsrs gq, budh
fopkjk/khu fjV dks [kkfjt dj fn;kA mYys[kuh; gS fd Mk-
vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z }kjk nk;j mDr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k
9398@2025 dk fo"ofo|ky; }kjk lk{; lfgr tokc ekuuh;
U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk Fkk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds
fjdkMZ ij miyC/k gS ,oa ftldh izfr Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk]
vkpk;Z ds vf/koDrk ds tfj, muds ikl Hkh miyC/k@laKku esa
gSA
;g fd] fo"ofo|ky; dsfo,V ds dkj.k tc Mk- vtqZu flag
cykSnk] fuyfEcr vkpk;Z dks vkHkkl gks x;k fd muds >wB dk
ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa QnkZQkk श gks tk,xk rks Mk- vtqZu flag
cykSnk }kjk fo"ofo|ky; }kjk tkjh muds fuyEcu vkns'k
fnukad 09-06-2025 ds Øe esa fnukad 19-06-2025 dks Ñf'k
egkfo|ky; ukSxkao&vyoj dks fcuk lwpuk ,oa fcuk eq[;ky;
NksMus dh vuqefr fy, okil t;iqj vk x,A 4 fnu rd fcuk
lwpuk@vuqefr eq[;ky; ls ukSxkao&vyoj us bUgs bZesy
Hkstdj fcuk vuqefr@tkudkjh budh eq{;ky; ls vuqifLFkfr
ij vkifÙk trkrs gq, bUgs rRdky eq[;ky; igqapus dk funsZ'k
fn;k rks Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] fuyfEcr vkpk;Z us fnukad 24-
06-2025 dks bZesy ds tfj, 5 fnu esfMdy vodk'k gsrq fy;k
x;k fpfdRlk izek.k i= Hkst fn;kA
;g fd] fuyfEcr vkpk;Z Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk dks muds
fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh Jheku vf/k'Brk Ñf'k egkfo|ky;
ukSxkao&vyoj ds ekQZr Hksts x, vusdksa i=ksa esa ls fuyfEcr
vkpk;Z Mk- vkpk;Z flag cykSnk us fdlh Hkh i= dk
tokc@tkudkjh miyC/k ugha djkbZ vkSj eq[;ky; ij mudh
mifLFkfr gsrq ck;kseSfVªd iathdj.k ds fy, Hkh bUgksaus vius
fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh ds vkns"kksa dh ikyuk djus ls euk dj fn;k
ftldh fyf[kr lwpuk Jheku vf/k'Bkrk d`f'k egkfo|ky;
ukSxkao&vyoj }kjk izsf'kr dh xbZ gSA
;g fd] fuyfEcr vkpk;Z Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk ds fo:)
vekur esa [k;kur ] QtyhZ lk{; rS;kj djus ,oa mUgs ;g
Kku gksrs gq, Hkh dh oks QthZ gS mUgsa mi;ksx esa ysus] xcu ds
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (5 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
izdj.k dh tkap desVh esa ftl xcu dk vijk/k izekf.kr ekurs
gq, ml ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh laLrqfr dh xbZ ml
laLrqfr dks fcuk dk;Zokgh ds uLrhc) djk nsus] ifjokjtuksa ds
uke ls lapkfyr QeksZa ls izR;{k rFkk ijks{k :i ls yk[kksa :i;s
dh [kjhnnkjh Lo;a ds dk;kZy; esa djus] jktdh; okgu ls
ftl nwjh ds fy, igys ek= 16 fdeh dk bdUnzkt gS mlh
nwjh ds fy, nksckjk dh xbZ leku ;k=k esa nwljh 180 fdeh
tcfd 180 fdeh ds fy, ;k=k le; ek= 40 feuV tSlk QthZ
fjdkMZ rS;kj dj vkijkf/kd nq:i;ksx djus] fcuk vuqefr ,oa
tkudkjh ds izk;ksftr fons'k ;k=k,a djus ,oa fu;ksDrk }kjk
ekaxs tkus ij Hkh mDr tkudkjh miyC/k u djkrs gq, mYVk
vf/kdkfj;ksa dks kedkuk] fefyHkxr ls fcuk vfkdkj ,oa
vkjVhVhih ,DV@fu;eksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, fcuk [qkyh
fufonk vkeaf=r fd, fo"ofo|ky; dh tehu ,oa mlij cus
LVªDpjksa dks 5 o"kZ ds fy, 25-50 yk[k esa fdjk, ij nsus vkSj
mldk fdjk,nkj ds euekfQd vukf/kd`r djkj gLrk{kfjr
djus] mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds funsZ"kksa ds lk"k; mya?ku }kjk
vuq"kklughurk djrs gq, fo"ofo|ky; vuq"kklu dks Hkax
djus] tkap@lrdZrk vf/kdkfj;ksa dks >wBs vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa esa
QWlkus ds iz;kl }kjk Mjkdj tkap dks vius fgr esa izHkkfor
djus vkfn d`R;ksa ls fo"ofo|ky; vuq"kklu ,oa lqj{kk dks
izHkkfor djus ds lk{; fjdkMZ ij gSa ysfdu Mk- vtqZu flag
cykSnk fuyEcu mijkUr Hkh tkap esa lg;ksx ds ctk; fo"ofo|
ky; vuq"kklu ,oa lqj{kk dks izHkkfor djrs gq, tkap esa Hkh
vojks/k iSnk dj jgs gSaA
;g fd] Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk muds ifjokjtuksa ds uke ls
lapkfyr dEifu;ksa@QeksZa ds ckjs esa ifCyd Mksesus esa miyC/k
tkudkjh ds vuqlkj lhbZvks gSA ;g Hkh lk{; miyC/k gqvk gS
fd Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk muds ifjokjtuksa ds uke ls
lapkfyr dEifu;ksa@QeksZA ds cSad [kkrksa esa vf/kd`r lk>k
[kkrsnkj gSa vkSj mu cSad [kkrksa esa ntZ bZesy Hkh Mk- vtqZu flag
cykSnk dh gh gS tks vkpj.k fu;eksa ds fo:) gSA Mk- vtqZu
flag cykSnk ftl QeZ ds lhbZvks gSa mlus fo"ofo|ky; esa
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (6 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
fufonk Hkjus ,oa izkIr djrs gq, lkeku lIykbZ fd, tkus ds
lk{; fjdkMZ ij ekStwn gSaA
;g fd] Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk ds fuyEcu mijkUr mUgksus >wBs
vkjksi yxkrs gq, ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj
esa ,d fjV ;kfpdk ,lchlhMCywih 9398@2025 nk;j dj
vius fuyEcu ij Lfkxu dk iz;kl fd;k ftlesa oks lQy ugh
gq,A mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr ,lchlhMCywih 9398@2025 ds
fo"ofo|ky; ofj'B vf/koDrk ds }kjk@jk; vuqlkj izLrqr
tokc esa Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk ds mijksDr vkijkf/kd ,oa
vuq"kklughurk vkfn ds d`R;ksa dk mYys[k ,oa gSA mDr d`R;ksa
ckcr ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds ekQZr Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk dks
miyC/k djk, rF;@lk{; ds mijkUr tkap vf/kdkfj;ksa us Mk-
vtqZu flag cykSnk ls muds fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh vf/k'Bkrk d`f'k
egkfo|ky; ukSxkao&vyoj ds ekQZr tkudkjh@tkap esa
lg;ksx pkgk ysfdu Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk us lg;ksx djus ds
ctk; funsZ"kksa dh bjhknkru vogsyuk djrs gq, fo"ofo|ky;
vuq"kklu ,oa lqj{kk dks izHkkfor djus dk d`R; fd;kA
;g fd] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo"ofo|ky; }kjk ofj'B vf/koDrk
ls fof/kd jk; Hkh yh xbZA fo"ofo|ky; iSuy ds ofj"B
vf/koDrk ls izkIr fof/kd jk; vuqlkj Hkh fuyfEcr vkpk;Z Mk-
vtqZu flag cykSnk ds fo:) mijksDr laKs; vkijkf/kd vkpj.k]
fo"ofo|ky; vuq"kklu ,oa lqj{kk dks izHkkfor djus ds d`R;
ds en~nsutj Jh d.kZ ujsUnz d`f'k fo"ofo|ky; tkscusj
vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;eksa ds v/khu d`yifr ds nkf;Ro ,oa
vf/kdkjksa ds lE;d fuoZgu gsrq fo"ofo|ky; LVSP;wV ds
v/;k; 9 ds fcUnq la[;k 9¼vii)(b&c½ ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd,
tkuk visf{kr gSA
;g fd] mijksDr rF;ksa] lk{;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk fo"ofo|ky;
iSuy ds ofj'B vf/koDrk ls izkIr fof/kd jk; dk voyksdu ,oa
euu djus ds ckn v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ dh jk; esa Jh d.kZ ujsUnz
d`f'k fo"ofo|ky; tkscusj vf/kfu;e ,oa mldh vuqlj.k esa
ekuuh; dqykf/kifr ,oa jkT;iky jktLFkku ds gLrk{kj ls
vf/kd`r LVSP;wV ds v/;k; 9 ds fcUnq la[;k 9 (viii) (b &c)
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (7 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
ds mi;ksx dks vko';d ikrs gq, Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z
dhV foKku foHkkx }Kjk fo"ofo|ky; vuq"kklu ,oa lqj{kk dks
izHkkfor djus ds d`R; ds en~nsutj rRdky izHkko ls Jh d.kZ
ujsUnz d`f'k fo"ofo|ky; tkscusj vf/kfu;e ,oa LVSP;wV ds
v/;k; 9 ds fcUnw la[;k 9 (ii) (b-iv) esa of.kZr "kkfLr
gh ,dek= fodYi miyC/k gSA rdn~uqlkj ,rn}kjk Mk- Mk-
vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z dhV foKku orZeku esa fuyfEcr dks
rRdky izHkko ls fo"ofo|ky; lsok ls c[kkZLr ¼Dismiss½
fd;k tkrk gSA"
2. Instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with
following prayer:
"(I) Pass any writ, order or direction whereby
the termination order dated 14.07.2025 be
quashed and set aside and the proceedings
undertaken by the respondents be declared
illegal and illicit.
(ii) Pass any writ, order or direction whereby
the respondent No.1 may be directed to reinstate
the writ petitioners and the respondents also, be
directed to allow the writ petitioner to continue
on the post and status which he was holding."
3. The material on record also indicated that on earlier
occasion, a S.B. Civil writ petition No.9383/2025 was filed by the
petitioner to challenge his suspension but same was dismissed as
withdrawn on 23.06.2025.
4. After service upon respondents of this writ petition,
respondent No.1 and 2 have filed their reply and thereafter
petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply.
5. Considering the submissions of learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of petitioner, the matter is considered for
final disposal at this stage, therefore we are deciding this writ
petition finally on merits.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (8 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
6. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an employee
of University, and he has been appointed on 05.05.1996 pursuant
to resolution of the Board of Management (BOM) by the Vice-
Chancellor. In pursuant to a disciplinary proceedings instituted on
complaints against the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor of the
University has dismissed the services without conducting
departmental enquiry, by invoking Power under the 9(viii)(b) and
(c) of Chapter IX of Official Statues of the University.
7. Learned Senior Advocate while placing reliance upon ground
of writ petition submitted that the impugned order dated
14.07.2025 is passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University,
who is also Chairperson of the Board of Management (BOM)
constituted under Sri Karan Narendra Agricultural University Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred as Act of 2013). He further submitted
that the respondents have raised an objection that writ petition is
not maintainable because departmental appeal is provided against
the impugned order and without availing remedy of appeal instant
writ cannot be filed. He also submitted that BOM is chaired by the
Vice Chancellor, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension
of bias and influencing the decision of Board of Management
therefore he has preferred to challenge illegal order by invoking
extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. He further
submitted that it is not necessary for petitioner to adopt forum of
statutory remedy by preferring departmental appeal to the Board
of Management (BOM) of University.
8. Learned Senior Advocate further referred the material
placed on record and submitted that Chancellor of the University,
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (9 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
Ex-Officio Governor of the State has issued a circular on
01.02.2022 in continuation of previous circular dated 19.06.2018
preventing and prohibiting the Vice-Chancellor from taking any
policy decision which is effecting administration. He further
submitted that on multiple counts the impugned order is suffering
from malice and bias and same is contrary to the statutory
provision of law. He further submitted that the impugned order is
passed by invoking extra-ordinary power, hence duty lies upon
respondents to justify the same.
9. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner further submitted
that petitioner is in civil services and not in any military or para-
military service, therefore dispensing with departmental enquiry is
contrary to the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398. He
further submitted that only on the ground that petitioner is
influencing and creating indiscipline and posing threat to security
of the University, the mandate of conducting enquiry was
dispensed with by the Vice Chancellor. He also submitted that
there is no justification on record to show that petitioner has ever
created any ruckus or chaos in conducting enquiry and sufficient
to draw a conclusion that the departmental enquiry is impossible,
is impermissible. He also submitted that the legal opinion
obtained by the Vice-Chancellor is also contrary to settled
proposition of law and without considering the correct legal
position, the impugned order is passed with malice. He also
submitted that without recording proper justification the Vice-
Chancellor has dispensed with the enquiry and dismissed the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (10 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
petitioner from the services of the University. The impugned order
is contrary to the settled proposition of law and also violative of
principle of natural justice.
10. Learned Senior Advocate further referred Section 26(9) of
Act of 2013 and submitted that the Vice-Chancellor can give
effect to decision of BOM regarding appointments, promotions and
dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the
University but in the instant case, present petitioner, who was
appointed after approval of Board of Management was not
dismissed after consulting and approval by the Board of
Management, which is contrary to provisions of Act of 2013 and
the Statutes.
11. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that there
were serious complaints against the Vice-Chancellor for indulging
in nepotism, favouristim, corruption and financial irregularities. He
further submitted that the Chancellor has constituted a
Committee to enquire into the allegations against the Vice-
Chancellor and present petitioner has filed said complaints to the
Chancellor. He also submitted that the Vice-Chancellor has
created a hostile work environment by promoting groupism and
favouritism and to get rid of present petitioner, a false
departmental action is initiated against the petitioner and without
conducting enquiry, his services were terminated as dismissal. He
further submitted that the extra-ordinary power of this Hon'ble
Court can be exercised only in circumstances where there is
exercise of arbitrary powers in dismissal of any employee then
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43122] (11 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is the only remedy left for the petitioner.
12. Learned Senior Advocate further placed reliance upon judgments in case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra), Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (13) SCC 244, Reena Rai Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2012 (10) SCC 215, Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. And Ors. 1984 Supp SCC 554, Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 1991 (1) SCC 362, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Pujab (1991) 1 SCC 362 Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. State of Bihar 2020 (3) SCC 153 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in cases of Hussain Ali Vs. State of Assam, 2022 (High Court of Gauhati), Sanjeev Kumar Vs, State of Haryana and Ors. (2021) (High Court of Punjab and Haryana), Preeti Devi Tiwari Vs. Union of India (2021) (High Court of Chattisgarh) and Hanuman Ram (Deceased) Vs. State of Rajasthan (2023) passed by different Benches of the High Courts.
13. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the petitioner was terminated by impugned order dated 14.07.2025 and as per Statute, he can file a statutory appeal before the Board of Management (BOM) constituted under Section 11 of the Act of 2013. He further submitted that petitioner has preferred a review petition to challenge order dated 14.07.2025 and the Chancellor (Governor) has constituted a Committee on 25.09.2025 under the Chairmanship of Sri Kailash Sodhani to (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (12 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] enquire into the allegations against the Vice-Chancellor and also taking decision on review petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, two petitions for same relief is not maintainable. He further submitted that when alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, then the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised, so a writ is not maintainable. He placed reliance upon judgment in case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip 2023 SCC Online SC 435, and submitted that case of present petitioner does not fall in any of the exception and the writ petition preferred by petitioner is not maintainable in view of the judgment dated 08.08.2013 in civil appeal No.6704/2013 titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (SC).
14. Learned counsel also submitted that the Act of 2013 and the Statutes contain sufficient provision to address and to show that sufficient remedy is available therein. He also submitted that wherein alternative and efficacious remedy can be availed by the petitioner but petitioner instead of adopting statutory remedies, has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. He further referred order dated 23.06.2025 in S.B. CWP No. 9383/2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that earlier writ petition preferred by petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn as he failed to get any relief from a Co- ordinate Bench.
15. Learned counsel for respondents further justified the order dated 14.07.2025 and submitted that there were serious charges (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (13 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] of financial irregularities against the petitioner and on the basis of complaints received by the Vice-Chancellor, an action is initiated against the petitioner. He further submitted that the evidence and the material available with the Vice-Chancellor were sufficient to draw a conclusion that enquiry against the petitioner is neither feasible nor possible and in circumstances after recording his satisfaction, the Vice-Chancellor has dismissed the petitioner from the services of the University. He also submitted that this Hon'ble Court cannot substitute its wisdom upon the Vice-Chancellor while recording disagreement with impugned order dated 14.07.2025. He also submitted that the Vice-Chancellor is authorized under the law to terminate and dismiss any employee under the Act of 2013 and the Statutes made therein, therefore the exercise of power by Vice-Chancellor is fully justified from the material placed on record.
16. Heard learned Senior Advocate for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material placed on record along with judgments as referred by both the parties.
17. The questions for consideration before us are:
i Whether the writ petition is not maintainable in view of alternative and efficacious remedy available to petitioner?
ii Whether dismissal order dated 14.07.2025 without conducting enquiry is justified?
18. In case of Commission of Income Tax (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering provision of Income Tax and the several judgments has laid down that where an alternative efficacious remedy is available then the High Court is not justified (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (14 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Article 148 of the Income Tax Act. Further observed that there were exception to the principle of alternative remedy and same is recognized as where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or resort to invoke the provision which are repealed or when an order has been passed in total violation of principle of natural justice.
19. In case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) again considering several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court it was laid down that powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extra-ordinary circumstances in matter pertaining to procedure and adjudicatory scheme qua Statutes.
20. The impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is passed by the Vice-Chancellor and last few paragraphs indicate that petitioner is not cooperating in the enquiry as he is posing a threat to the discipline and security of the University, therefore conducting enquiry is not possible and same is reproduced again for ready reference:
;g fd] mijksDr rF;ksa] lk{;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk fo"ofo|ky; iSuy ds ofj'B vf/koDrk ls izkIr fof/kd jk; dk voyksdu ,oa euu djus ds ckn v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ dh jk; esa Jh d.kZ ujsUnz d`f'k fo"ofo|ky; tkscusj vf/kfu;e ,oa mldh vuqlj.k esa ekuuh; dqykf/kifr ,oa jkT;iky jktLFkku ds gLrk{kj ls vf/kd`r LVSP;wV ds v/;k; 9 ds fcUnq la[;k 9 (viii) (b &c) ds mi;ksx dks vko';d ikrs gq, Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (15 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] dhV foKku foHkkx }Kjk fo"ofo|ky; vuq"kklu ,oa lqj{kk dks izHkkfor djus ds d`R; ds en~nsutj rRdky izHkko ls Jh d.kZ ujsUnz d`f'k fo"ofo|ky; tkscusj vf/kfu;e ,oa LVSP;wV ds v/;k; 9 ds fcUnw la[;k 9 (ii) (b-iv) esa of.kZr "kkfLr gh ,dek= fodYi miyC/k gSA rdn~uqlkj ,rn}kjk Mk- Mk- vtqZu flag cykSnk] vkpk;Z dhV foKku orZeku esa fuyfEcr dks rRdky izHkko ls fo"ofo|ky; lsok ls c[kkZLr ¼Dismiss½ fd;k tkrk gSA"
21. It indicated that order is passed by the Vice-Chancellor, who is appointed by the Chancellor pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Act of 2013 in consultation with State Government upon recommendation of a Selection Committee. The Vice-Chancellor is an officer of the University as defined under Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are provided under Section 26 of the Act and sub-section (ix) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the decision of the Board (BOM) regarding appointment, promotion and dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the University.
22. Rule 1 of Chapter II of Statutes provides for Board of Management whereas Section 11 of the Act of 2013 provides that Board of Management shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor as Ex- Officio Chairman. Rule 1 of Chapter III of Statutes empowers the Vice-Chancellor to appoint employees of the University against sanctioned posts whereas Section (2)(xiv) empowers the Board to approve recommendation of selection committee for appointment in prescribed manner of officers, teachers, employees of the rank of Assistant Registrar and above in the University.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (16 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
23. Rule 1 of Chapter XI of the Statutes provides that all appointment of Teachers of the University shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of merit as recommended by Selection Committee duly approved by Board of Management (BOM). It clearly indicates that a teacher can be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor only after approval of the Board of Management (BOM).
24. Rule 2(vii) of Chapter IX of Statutes defines the disciplinary authority which means appointing authority or to whom such power is delegated. Rule (ix) of Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for penalties, appeals and review.
25. Rule 9(ii)(b) of Chapter IX of Statutes provides for major penalties and we are reproducing as under:
i Demolition/reduction to a lower grade or post or fixation to lower pay scale/stage in a time of scale of pay, ii Compulsory retirement, iii Removal from service, which shall not be disqualification for future employment, iv Dismissal from service which shall be disqualification for future employment, v Withholding of increment(s) with cumulative effect.
26. Further Rule 9(iii) of Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for disciplinary authorities and same is described as under:
a The appointing/competent authority may impose on Teacher/Officer/Employee any of the penalties specified in the rule No.9 (i & ii) of this Chapter.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (17 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] b A competent authority as declared by BOM may impose on Teacher/Officer/Employee any of the penalties specified in Rule 9(i & ii) of this chapter.
27. Rule 9(v) of Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for procedure for imposing major penalties and it indicates that no order to impose any major penalty on the teacher/officer employee shall be passed except after an enquiry held in manner prescribed hereafter.
28. Rule 9(viii) of the Chapter IX of the Statutes provides for special procedure in certain cases and we are reproducing as under:
a Where a penalty is imposed on a delinquent Teacher/Officer/employee on the grounds of conduct which has led to his/her conviction on a criminal charge or b Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, or c Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the University, it is not expedient to follow such procedure.
29. Aforementioned clearly indicates that in case of conviction on a criminal charge or reasonable not practicable to follow the procedure or in the interest of the security of University, the order may be passed considering the circumstances of the case. Herein (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (18 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] this case impugned order is passed by invoking provisions of special procedure.
30. Rule 9(ix) of Chapter IX of the Statute provides for appeal and same is reproduced as under:
a In the case of an order which is appealable, the authority passing the order shall, within a reasonable time give a certified copy of the order free of cost to the person against whom the order is passed.
b No appeal under these rules shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of 30 days from the date on which the appellant receives a copy of the order appealed against. Provided that the appellate authorities may entertain that the appellant had sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time.
31. Rule 9 (xvii) of the Chapter IX of the Statutes provides that Chancellor is having power to review. As per Schedule-I, disciplinary authority is the Board of Management (BOM). The objection about maintainability of writ petition:
32. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered several judgments and laid down that where there is a scheme under any statutes for redressal of grievances with provision for technical or suitable relief then the High Court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (19 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] as a general rule of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy there are some exceptions and same are as under:
(I) Where the statutory authority has acted contrary to the provisions of the enactment in question,
(ii) The statutory authority acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure,
(iii) The authority has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed,
(iv) When an order has been passed in total violation of principle of natural justice.
These exceptions are not exhaustive but still it is our duty to consider that whether the remedy under the statute is effective or not or it is just a mere formality with no substantive relief. The Court has to consider that if an appeal is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife" then the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility.
33. In case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide but are required to be exercised only in extra- ordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to procedure and adjudicatory scheme qua the statutes.
34. The judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) pertains to issue of assessment of income tax under Section 148 of Income Tax Act whereas in case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip (supra) the matter pertains to (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (20 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] commercial transaction in relation to the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. While considering the provisions of law in both the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there were a creation of a statutory tribunal under the Act to exercise the power of authority to adjudicate the dispute, and direct invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial and income tax matters were discouraged. Thus, both the judgments are not applicable in the facts of the case, as this is not a case of commercial transaction; rather, the petitioner is an employee of a State-funded University established under the Act of 2013.
35. In case of Reena rai Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that dismissal of any employee without fair enquiry violates Article 311 of the Constitution of India and it also violates the principles of natural justice.
36. In the case of Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. And Ors. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fairness, impartiality and adherence to procedure are essential in departmental proceeding. In case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Pujab (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is duty of the disciplinary authority to apply its independent mind to the record and the procedure adopted must adhere to principles of natural justice.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (21 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
37. In case of Leelavathi N & Ors Etc vs The State of Karnataka & Ors Etc 2025 INSC 1242, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"37. Nevertheless, a writ petition under Article 226 may still be maintainable notwithstanding the existence of such an alternative remedy in exceptional circumstances, including the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution; instances of ultra vires or illegal exercise of power by a statutory authority; violation of the principles of natural justice; or where the vires of the parent legislation itself is under challenge. While these exceptions have been carved out and reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions, the facts of the present case do not fall within any of these exceptions so asto warrant the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court."
38. When we consider the provisions as referred under the Act of 2013 and statutes made therein then it is apparent that the Board of management is constituted under Section 11 and the Vice- Chancellor is ex-officio Chairman of the Board. Section 12(xiv) empowers the Board to approve the recommendation of the selection committee for appointment of officers, teachers, employees of the rank of Assistant Registrar or above in the University.
39. Chapter VI of the statutes provides for manner of appointment of teachers of the University after approval by the BOM on the basis of proposal submitted by the Vice-Chancellor.
40. Rule 9 (ix) of Chapter IX provides for appeal against order of suspension and or imposing penalty and as per Schedule-I, (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (22 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] appellate authority for major penalty is the Board of Management (BOM).
41. The provision of Act of 2013 and the statutes made therein clearly provides that the appointment for teachers and officers above the position of Assistant Registrar has to be approved by the Board of Management (BOM) and then the Vice-Chancellor is authorized to issue appointment order. It means that without approval by the BOM, the Vice-Chancellor of University could not make any appointment. Similarly the meeting of Board of Management (BOM) has to be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, as ex-officio chairman.
42. In the instant case, the impugned order is issued by the Vice- Chancellor and in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred judgment in case of Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 267 and we are reproducing a paragraph from Ram and Shyam Company (supra) and same is sufficient to answer objection raised by learned counsel for respondents:
"Before we deal with the larger issue, let me put out of the way the contention that found favour with the High Court in rejecting the writ petition. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench recalling the observations of this court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries (1979) 4 SCC 22 rejected the writ petition observing that the petitioner who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under, Art. 226 of the Constitution must have exhausted the normal statutory remedies available (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (23 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] to him. We remain unimpressed. Ordinarily it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact in the very decision relied upon by the High Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh 1958 SCR 595 it is observed that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It should be made specifically clear that where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Art. 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. An appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations an alternative effective remedy keeping aside the nice distinction between jurisdiction and merits. Look at the fact situation in this case. Power was exercised formally by the authority set up under the Rules to grant contract but effectively and for all practical purposes by the Chief Minister of the State. To whom do you, Appeal in a State administration against the decision of the Chief Minister? The cliche of appeal from "Caesar to Caesar's wife"
can only be bettered by appeal from ones own order to oneself, Therefore this is a case in which the High Court was not at all justified in throwing (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (24 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] out the petition on the untenable ground that the appellant had an effective alternative remedy. The High Court did not pose to itself the question, who would grant relief when the impugned order is passed at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State. To whom did the High Court want the appeal to, be filed over the decision of the Chief Minister? There was no answer and that by itself without anything more would be sufficient to set aside the judgment of the High Court."
43. Herein this case, the Vice-Chancellor, without approval of the Board of Management, has issued the impugned order on 14.07.2025, and now, if an appeal is preferred before the Board of Management, again sitting under the chairmanship of the very same Vice-Chancellor, then certainly the appeal would be from Caesar to Caesar's wife.
44. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the provision of appeal to the Board of Management is just an eye-wash, and it is not an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Act of 2013 and the statutes made therein. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
45. A review petition is said to be pending before the Vice- Chancellor, but only an order is placed on record to show that the Chancellor has constituted a committee by appointing Dr. Kailash Sodhani as Coordinator, and the committee was also directed to look into the allegations against the Vice-Chancellor. The order dated 25.09.2025 itself is sufficient to show that the Chancellor (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (25 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] has not acted in accordance with the provisions of law under Sections 9(i) and (ii) of the Act of 2013.
46. The instant writ petition is preferred on 18.07.2025, and there is no record to show that the review application was filed prior to filing of the present petition. Therefore, the pendency of the review petition before the Chancellor is not a ground to draw a conclusion that the current writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is maintainable, and the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is not maintainable. Merits of the Writ Petiton:
47. The impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is passed under Rule 9(viii)(b) and (c) of Chapter IX of the Statutes of the University. The Vice-Chancellor has recorded his own satisfaction in dispensing with the regular enquiry and invoking the provision for dismissal of the present petitioner. The provision for dismissal in such circumstances as provided under the Statutes is reproduced as under.
(a) Where a penalty is imposed on a delinquent Teacher/Officer/employee on the grounds of conduct which has led to his/her conviction on a criminal charge or
(b) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, or
(c)Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that in the (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (26 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] interest of the security of the University, it is not expedient to follow such procedure.
48. As per the provision, there is neither any criminal case nor any conviction by any competent authority; therefore, Rule 9(viii)
(a) of the Statutes is not applicable. There is no record to show that any criminal case is registered against the petitioner.
49. The Vice-Chancellor has recorded his satisfaction that "it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules". The impugned order, which we have referred to ad verbatim, clearly indicates that no instances were reported to show why and how the inquiry is not practicable. Similarly, there is no document on record to show as to why holding an inquiry is impracticable.
50. The phrase "impracticable to hold enquiry" generally refers to a situation where it is not reasonably possible or feasible to conduct a formal inquiry -- such as in circumstances beyond control like threat to witnesses, disappearance of witnesses, destruction of material evidence, impracticability to procure material, risk to safety, or natural calamities etc.
51. The Vice-Chancellor has also not recorded any reasons for impracticability of holding the inquiry. There is no instance to show any imminent threat or hostile environment, therefore recording satisfaction of impracticability is neither genuine nor bonafide, thus the requirement under Rule 9 (viii)(b) is not justified from material on record.
52. Another reason is in interest of the security of University it is not expedient to follow procedure as mandated under Rule 9(viii) (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (27 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
(c) of the Statutes. There is no record to show that there existed a threat of violent agitation or any disruptive activity, lead by the petitioner.
53. Learned Senior Advocate has referred judgement in case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra) where three situations were mentioned in dispensing with departmental enquiry. Herein not a single complaint is filed in any of the police station against the petitioner to establish that petitioner has intimidated or threatened anyone for deposing against him. Similarly not a single record is filed to show that present petitioner has ever created any threat to safety and security of the University thus nothing is on record to justify the satisfaction recorded by the Vice-Chancellor.
54. After considering judgment in case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and provision of protection under provision of protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, D.P.&T., Govt. of India in O.M. dated 25.11.2022, has explained Special Procedure in Disciplinary Action after collating the previous O.Ms. It clarified that the exceptional circumstances do not give unbridled power to the competent authority when it takes action under any of the three clauses in the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution or any service rule corresponding to it. The competent authority is expected to exercise its power under this proviso after due caution and considerable application of mind. At last, it cautioned that, nothing should be done that would create the impression that the action taken is arbitrary or malafide.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (28 of 29) [CW-11167/2025]
55. Having considered aforementioned, the allegations against the present petitioner were of financial irregularities and misappropriation, which includes fabrication of documents and evidence by filing false claims, but there is nothing on record to justify dispensation with the inquiry as mandated under Rule 9 (v) of Chapter IX of the Statutes of the University.
56. In the case of Reena Rai v. State of Haryana (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that dismissal of an employee without a fair inquiry violates Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice. The termination of any employee is possible only after strict compliance with the procedures prescribed under the Rules, as there is a constitutional protection, and if there is a violation of any fundamental right or constitutional right, an employee has the right to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
57. It is necessary, before imposing any penalty, particularly a major penalty, that there should be a fair and unbiased inquiry wherein the employee is informed of the charges and is provided and allowed an adequate opportunity to defend himself to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice. It is also necessary for the employer to consider imposing punishment proportionate to the misconduct, and no employer can award a punishment disproportionate to the misconduct.
58. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order is not only contrary to the provisions under the Statutes and the Act of 2013, but also violative of the principles of natural (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (29 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] justice, therefore, the issue is decided in favour of the present petitioner, and as a result, the instant petition is liable to be allowed.
59. As a result, the writ petition preferred by petitioner Dr. Arjun Singh Baloda under Article 226 of Constitution of India is partly allowed and impugned order dated 14.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is reinstated to the position, where he was prior to issuance of impugned order dated 14.07.2025. The petitioner is also entitled to all benefits and continuity of service, as if the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 was never passed.
60. The respondents are at liberty to consider holding of an enquiry on the allegations and charges against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 9(v) of Chapter IX of the Statutes.
61. No order as to cost.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /153 (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)