Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. G.S.Rawat vs Forest Research Institute And Others on 20 November, 2017
Bench: K.M. Joseph, V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 369 of 2011
Dr. G.S. Rawat. ........Petitioner
Versus
The Forest Research Institute
(Deemed University)
& others. .......Respondents
Mr. M.C. Pandey, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate for
respondent nos. 1 & 4.
Dated: November 20, 2017
Coram: Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
Prayers in the amended writ petition read as
follows:
"i. Issue writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari by quashing
Memo No. 2831/1-1/2007- FRIU dated
02.09.2011 (Annexure No. 29) issued
under the signatures of Sri A.K.
Tripathi, Registrar FRI (Deemed
University) and Order No. 3641/1-
1/2007-FRI DU, dated 2nd December
2011, issued by the respondent no. 2
as Director FRI and Vice Chancellor of
respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 32)
and resolution no. 10/2011 passed by
the Board of Management of Forest
Research Institute (Deemed) University
on 14th July, 2011 declaring all these
orders/decisions totally illegal and in
violation of principles of natural justice
(inserted vide Hon'ble Court's Order
dated 8/6/2016).
2
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus by
commanding the respondent no. 5 to
initiate and take action against the
second and third respondents for the
illegalities/misuse and abuse of the
powers committed by them and pass
such order as this Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice may deem fit and
proper.
iii. Issue writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari by quashing
the appointment of the respondent no.
2 as Director General of ICFRE.
v. Issue an interim order or direction
by staying the operation of the order
issued vide Memo No. 2831/1-1/2007-
FRIU dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure No.
29) issued under the signatures of Sri
A.K. Tripathi, Registrar FRI (Deemed
University) and Order No. 3641/1-
1/2007-FRI DU, dated 2nd December
2011, issued by the respondent no. 2
as Director FRI and Vice Chancellor of
respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 32)
during the pendency of this writ
petition."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows:
The petitioner, while serving as a Lecturer,
came to be appointed in the Indian Forest Service
during 1978 and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre. He
came to be promoted finally to the post of Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the year 2008.
In 1995, he was deputed to the Indian Council of
Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Government
of India as Head of Non-Wood Forest product in Forest
Research Institute (for short 'F.R.I.'). He served there
3
till 1997. He was repatriated during 2004 and
promoted as Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai.
Again, in 2006, he was posted on deputation to ICFRE,
Dehradun, as Deputy Director General (Research),
which post he held till 2011. He was posted as
Director General In-Charge in the ICFRE in the month
of August, 2009. He enrolled himself during 1996 as a
student for Ph.D. Course in Forest Research Institute
(Deemed) University in Non Wood Forest Product
(N.W.F.P.) Division of F.R.I. Initially, petitioner chose
his topic for Ph.D. as "Studies on the Chemical Nature
of Celtis Australis with special reference to its Socio-
Economic Importance in North West Himalaya".
Petitioner went to U.S.A. to undergo a specialized
training by the Food and Agricultural Organization on
the subject. On completion of his course, petitioner
found that his technique would be very useful, if he
apply for the pinus roxburghii in the Himalayan States.
Therefore, he changed his topic to "Exploration of Bore
Hole Method of Resin Tapping in Pinus Roxburghii
Sarg" for his Ph.D. Course in 1998. Petitioner was only
the Head of the Department and the Director of F.R.I.
was someone else. He submitted his thesis on
18.12.2001 for pre thesis seminar and evaluation. He
became the Director of the F.R.I. The file was
submitted to the Director General ICFRE for
appointment of examiners to evaluate his thesis. The
Director General appointed two examiners. The
Director General appointed Mr. M.C. Pande as a viva-
voce examiner on 06.06.2002, who held the viva on
10.06.2002 in the presence of sixty Senior Scientists
4
and Forests Officers. All the replies of the petitioner
were to the utmost satisfaction of the examiner and all
the Scholarly audience. The report of the examiner Mr.
M.C. Pande shows that the petitioner was
recommended for award of the Ph.D. degree and it was
recommended as being very good and sincere efforts by
the candidate. Later, the matter was placed before the
Research Degree Committee (R.D.C.), which consisted
of eight persons apart from the petitioner. Since,
petitioner was incidentally the Director of F.R.I., he
happened to chair the R.D.C. This meeting took place
on 13.06.2002. A complaint came to be filed. It is
submitted that petitioner submitted Annexure No. 7
explanation. The matter was placed before the Board
of Management in its meeting held on 18.10.2004,
which was chaired by Mr. R.P.S. Katwal, I.F.S., D.G.,
I.C.F.R.E. attended by ten other members. It was
informed that the petitioner had chaired the meeting of
the R.D.C. by virtue of his holding the post of Director
of F.R.I. when his own case was being considered.
Though, none of the Rules of the University were
violated, it was decided that the case of the petitioner
may be placed once again before the R.D.C. (Annexure
No. 8). The minutes of new R.D.C. held on 10.11.2004
are to be found in Annexure No. 9. It approved the
Ph.D. to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.06.2002. Petitioner
was given Ph.D. degree by Annexure No. 10 dated
31.01.2005. Annexure No. 11 purports to be the
minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management
dated 18.11.2005. In the said meeting of the Board of
Management, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:
5
"2. Dr. A.N. Purohit, Ex Vice
Chancellor, HNB Garhwal University
desired that the Board of Management
should appeal to the Ministry to review
the entire case in the light of approval
granted by new RDC regarding award
of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. This RDC
was constituted independently and
examined the evaluation reports and
viva-voce reports of the examiners and
having satisfied itself, approved the
award of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S.
Rawat. Sh. A.K. Goyal, IFS, DIG (RT)
stated that the Ministry of Environment
& Forests wanted to ensure that the
prestige of the FRI (Deemed University)
is not put to question by any public or
private person.
3. The chairman referred to the
minutes of the last meeting of BOM and
expressed that the Board of
Management agreed that there were
some lapses. However, after clearance
from the new RDC the matter should
have come back to the Board of
Management instead it was cleared for
the award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat.
In principle all the members agreed
that there are lapses in award of degree
to Sh. G.S. Rawat and necessary steps
may be taken to resolve the matter.
Resolution No. 1
The Board of Management having
gone through the entire case resolved
to authorize the Director General,
ICFRE, the Chancellor of the FRI
(Deemed University) to take a final
decision on this matter."
3. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner
that the matter was considered by one Mr. G.K.
6
Prasad, who was also holding the post of the Director
General. Annexure No. 12 reads as under:
"DG. ICFRE
In the BOM meeting of 18.11.2005
during discussion it has come out that
the examination of the thesis has been
done by examiners appointed with the
approval of the D.G., ICFRE and not by
Shri G.S. Rawat in his capacity as the
DIR/ FRI.
Further the question of chairing of
the earlier RDC by Shri G.S. Rawat
should stand Settled once a fresh RDC
meeting has been convened on
10.11.2004 and recommended the
award of grace. Presentation of the
recommendation of RDC and its
acceptance by the then DG ICFRE and
chancellor of FRI deemed university is
an administrative issue, which by
putting to the BOM of 18.11.2005
completes the requirements of award of
grace, so there is no need to differ from
the earlier decision and this was the
reason for arriving at the said
conclusion.
The above stand/ facts may be
communicated to DIG (R.T.)
(sd)
[G.K. Prasad]
30.03.2006
[Sd]
[DDG (Edu)]
03.04.2006"
4. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner
that a post of Director General ICFRE arose. A
notification dated 16.10.2009 was issued. The
petitioner also applied. Certain allegations were made
against the second respondent. There is reference to
7
meeting of the Search Selection Committee (Annexure
No. 15). The second respondent was selected and
Annexure No. 15A is produced in support thereof. It is
contended that the second respondent has been
selected though he has a criminal case pending against
him for the alleged forgery for the purpose of cheating.
Annexure No. 16 is the newspaper item. Petitioner
came to be served with a legal notice (Annexure No. 17)
to which he submitted reply (Annexure No. 18). The
minutes of the meeting, which took place on
30.06.2011, are produced as Annexure No. 19.
Annexure No. 20 is the order dated 16.08.2001 and
Annexure No. 21 is the order dated 02.09.2011. There
are allegations against the second respondent, which
need not detain us. Suffice it to say that the petitioner
came to be served with Annexure No. 29, which is
Memo dated 02.09.2011. It reads as follows:
"No. 2831/1-1/2007-FRIU
Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University
P.O.I.P.E. Kaulagarh Road
Dehradun- 248 195
Dated 02.09.2011
To,
Sh. G.S. Rawat, IFS
Ex-Ph. D. Scholar, FRI (Deemed)
University
Office of the PCCF,
Panagal Building
Saidapet
Chennai-15
Sub: Award of Ph.D. degree-regarding.
MEMO
1. Whereas, a complaint vide F. No. 7-
5/2011 (CPP-I/DU) dated 9th June, 2011
8
was received from under Secretary,
University Grant Commission (UGC) seeking
comments on the complaint addressed to the
then Minister of Environment and Forests,
regarding award of Ph.D. Degree to himself
by Sh. G.S. Rawat, IFS as Vice Chancellor,
FRI (DU) Dehradun against UGC norms.
2. And whereas, letter dated 5th July 2011
was received from Chief Vigilance Officer,
ICFRE stating that in view of propriety of
academic rules and procedures, being an
academic matter it may be placed before the
Board of Management (BOM) in its
forthcoming meeting. The reference was also
received by ICFRE from MoEF vide the letter
dated 22.03.2011.
3. And whereas, the issue of award of
Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat was placed
before the meeting of Board of Management
of FRI (Deemed) University held on
14/7/2011.
4. And whereas, the Board of
Management went into the details relating to
the entire history of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S.
Rawat, Ex-PH.D. Scholar, FRI (Deemed)
University.
5. And whereas, Sh. G.S. Rawat, being the
student and while acting as Ex-Officio Vice
Chancellor of FRI (Deemed) University,
himself approved the Chairman & Members
of RAC committee to hold his Pre-thesis
seminar and changed the name of Dr. P.L.
Soni who was earlier Expert Member of his
RAC to Dr. N.S. Bisht. The Board of
Management considered it as a serious lapse
and found it morally and ethically wrong as
Sh. G.S. Rawat was student and acting Ex-
Officio Vice Chancellor of FRI (Deemed)
University. In any case the file should not
have been dealt by himself when his own
case was under consideration.
9
6. The RAC for Pre-thesis seminar was
chaired by Shri R.P. Sharma who
recommended his own name for
examinership which is not the usual
practice. Sh. G.S. Rawat being student did
not point this out while he dealt his own
case and recommended the names of the
examiners (one of whom was the Chairman
of his own RAC) to the Chancellor. The file
of his own case should not have been dealt
by Shri G.S. Rawat who was a Ph.D. scholar
of F.R.I. (Deemed) University and was
dealing his own case as Ex-officio Vice
Chancellor.
7. Whereas, the Board of Management
held on 14/7/2011 considered it as a
serious lapse on part of Shri G.S. Rawat, Ex-
PhD scholar and found it morally and
ethically wrong to have dealt his own case,
being the PhD scholar and Ex-officio Vice-
Chancellor of F.R.I. (Deemed) University, and
requesting DG, ICFRE for the appointment
of examiners for evaluation of his thesis even
before its submission and obtaining consent
of examiners even before submission of his
thesis amounted to moral and academic
impropriety. The processing of the file
appears to have been done in unusual haste
to help a particular scholar who was also
functioning as acting Ex-Officio V.C. of FRI
(Deemed) University.
8. Whereas, being the Ex-Officio V.C., he
approved his own case to put up before RDC
as Ph.D. scholar though the approval should
have been given by DG, ICFRE and morally
it was wrong for Sh. G.S. Rawat to have
dealt with his own case in this instance also.
9. Whereas, Sh. G.S. Rawat chaired the
RDC in his own case for the award of PH.D.
degree and the Board of Management
considered it as serious lapse and resolved
that it was morally and ethically wrong to
have chaired the RDC by Sh. G.S. Rawat
wherein his own case was being considered
10
for the award of Ph.D. degree and it was also
like awarding the degree to himself by Sh.
G.S. Rawat.
10. Whereas, Board of Management also
noted that there had been unusual haste in
processing his case by Sh. G.S. Rawat while
holding the additional charge of acting
Director, F.R.I. and Ex-Officio V.C.
11. Whereas, the members of the Board of
Management also raised doubts on the
noting on page no. 8 of the notesheet
wherein Shri Rawat had been referred as
external student as mentioned on page while
he was working in FRI and the certificate
given by the Supervisor Late Dr. K.S.
Bhandari in the thesis also confirms that
Shri Rawat had worked under Dr.
Bhandari's supervision for more than twenty
four months and put his attendance for
more than two hundred days in conducting
the experiments at Forest Research
Institute. Since in his registration letter it
was not mentioned whether he was
registered as external or internal student but
at the time of processing of the file to DG for
the appointment of two external examiners
for evaluation of the thesis his external
student status might have been mentioned
on the page no. 8 of the notesheet to grant
the favour of exemption from the pursuance
of computer application and statistics
analysis course which was not required for
external students and which was not
undertaken by Shri Rawat.
12. Whereas, Board of Management after
carrying in depth analysis and examination
of the facts resolved that being the then
officiating Director, F.R.I. and Ex-Officio V.C.
of F.R.I (Deemed) University Sh. G.S. Rawat
was guilty of gross moral, ethical and
academic impropriety and serious
procedural lapses.
11
13. Whereas Board of Management in its
meeting dated 14.07.2011 unanimously
resolved to withdraw the degree awarded to
him.
14. Now, therefore before finally
withdrawing the degree, it is considered in
fitness of things to give an opportunity to Sh.
G.S. Rawat to clarify his position and
conduct on above stated points within 30
days of issue of this letter. In case no reply
is received, it will be presumed that he has
no clarification to offer.
This issues with the approval of DG,
ICFRE/Chancellor, FRI (Deemed) University.
Sd/-
(A.K. Tripathi)
Registrar
FRI (Deemed) University"
5. Petitioner had originally approached the
Madras High Court challenging Annexure No. 29
notice; but, the same was withdrawn noticing that the
Madras High Court did not have jurisdiction.
6. Annexure No. 29-A, which has been
incorporated by way of amendment, purports to be the
minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management. It
is impugned in the writ petition after amendment and
since it is crucial for resolving the dispute, the relevant
portion relating to the petitioner is extracted
hereunder:
"Resolution No. 10/2011
The members considered the
supplementary agenda presented
before it regarding award of Ph.D.
12
Degree to Shri G.S. Rawat-
Complaints.
The members considered the
supplementary agenda at great length.
The members were of the view that
ultimately Board of Management has to
take final decision in the matter. The
chairman and all the members stated
that there are many serious glaring
moral and ethical improprieties and
procedural lapses involved in awarding
the Ph.D. degree to Shri Rawat. The
Board of Management very
emphatically pointed out some of these
improprieties-
(i) Shri G.S. Rawat as Director, FRI,
himself approved the Chairman &
members of RAC committee to hold his
pre-thesis seminar and changed the
proposed name of Dr. P.L. Soni who
was earlier Expert Member of his RAC
to Dr. N.S. Bisht (Annexure-1).
The Board of Management
considered it as a serious lapse and
found it morally and ethically wrong
as Shri G.S. Rawat was student and
acting Ex-Officio Vice Chancellor of
FRI (Deemed) University. In any
case the file should not have been
dealt by himself when his own case
was under consideration.
The RAC for Pre-thesis seminar
was chaired by Shri R.P. Sharma
(Annexure-II) who recommended his
own name for examiner-ship which is
not the usual practice. Shri G.S.
Rawat being student recommended
the names of examiners (One of
whom was chairman of his own RAC)
to the Chancellor (Annexure-III).
The file of his own case should not
have been dealt by Shri G.S. Rawat
who was a Ph.D. scholar of F.R.I.
13
(Deemed) University and was dealing
his own case as Ex-officio Vice-
Chancellor.
(ii) In Shri Rawat's case, although the
thesis was not submitted at that time,
on 22/3/2002 D.G., ICFRE as
Chancellor, appointed Shri R.P.
Sharma and Sh. M.C. Pandey
(Annexure-III) as examiners to evaluate
the thesis of Sh. G.S. Rawat on the
basis of pre-thesis submission seminar
of Sh. G.S. Rawat which was held on
21/12/2001. Sh. R.P. Sharma was the
Chairman of RAC meeting. His Thesis
was submitted in FRI University on
7/5/2002 (Annexure-V). The thesis
was sent to the examiners on
8/5/2002, the next day on which the
thesis was submitted by Shri G.S.
Rawat. The examiners submitted
thesis reports on 23/5/2002 and
29/5/2002 itself. On receiving the
reports from the examiners, the file was
again moved to GD, ICFRE for
appointment of viva-voce examiner,
who on 6/6/2002 appointed Shri M.C.
Pandey (Annexure-IV) to hold the viva-
voce. The viva-voce was held on
10/6/2002 and on 10/6/2002 itself,
Shri G.S. Rawat acting as Director,
F.R.I. approved that his own case be
put up before the RDG (Annexure-IV).
The Board of Management
resolved that appointment of
examiners and obtaining their
consent before submission of the
thesis was against the usual practice.
He dealt his own case in the matter
on the file. Moreover, the approval
given by Shri Rawat as Ex-Officio
V.C. to put up his own case before
the RDC as Ph.D. student amounts
to moral and academic impropriety.
The approval should have been given
by DG, ICFRE.
14
(iii) The notice for the RDC meeting
was issued on 12/6/2002. The case
was put up before RDC on 13/6/2002
which was chaired by Shri G.S. Rawat,
as acting Director, FRI (Annexure-VI).
Shri Rawat handed over charge of
Director on 14/6/2002.
The Board of Management
considered it as serious lapse and
resolved that it was morally and
ethically wrong to chair the RDC by
Shri G.S. Rawat where his own case
was being considered for the award
of Ph.D. Degree and it is also like the
awarding of degree to himself by the
chairman of RDC. The Board of
Management agreed that there has
been unusual haste in processing the
case of Shri G.S. Rawat PH.D.
student when he himself was holding
the additional charge of acting
Director, F.R.I. and Ex-officio V.C.
(iv) As per the resolution of the Board
of Management meeting held on
18/10/2004, the case of Shri G.S.
Rawat was again put up before the
Research Degree Committee in its
meeting on 10/11/2004. The RDC
cleared the award of Ph.D. Degree to
Sh. G.S. Rawat in the meeting dated
10/11/2004 (Annexure-VII). And
thereafter, the file was submitted to
DG, ICFRE and on obtaining his
approval, degree was issued to Sh. G.S.
Rawat on 27.01.2005.
The Board of Management
resolved that the matter should have
come back to the Board of
Management after its clearance from
RDC before awarding and issuing the
degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. Degree
was awarded and issued to him
15
without passing formal grace from
Board of Management.
(v) As per the resolution of the Board
of Management meeting held on
18/1/2004, the case of Shri G.S.
Rawat was again put up before the
Research Degree Committee in its
meeting on 10/11/2004. The RDC
cleared the award of Ph.D. Degree to
Sh. G.S. Rawat in the meeting dated
10/11/2004 but cleared it w.e.f.
13/6/2002. It should have been
cleared w.e.f. 10/11/2004 i.e. the date
of second RDC. Therefore, the date
10/11/2004 (the date of second RDC)
should have been mentioned on the
degree of Shri G.S. Rawat instead of
13th June, 2002 (the date of First RDC
chaired by Shri Rawat himself).
The Board of Management also
observed this serious lapse while
clearing the award of degree and
mentioning the date of RDC meeting
in the original degree issued to Shri
G.S. Rawat on 27/1/05 and on this
ground alone the degree awarded to
Shri G.S. Rawat becomes non-ist.
(vi) In the Board of Management
meeting held on 18/11/2005. In
principle all the members agreed that
there are lapses in award of degree to
Sh. G.S. Rawat and necessary steps
may be taken to resolve the matter.
However, after clearance from the new
RDC the matter should have come back
to the BOM instead it was cleared for
the award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat.
As per resolution no. 1 of BOM meeting
held on 18/11/2005, the BOM having
gone through the entire case resolved
to authorize the Director General,
ICFRE, the Chancellor of the FRI
(Deemed) University) to take final
decision on this matter. DG, ICFRE in
16
his letter dated 30th January, 2006
written to the Secretary, MOEF,
Government of India had stated that if
Ministry feels that getting thesis
reevaluated by a fresh panel of
examiners should be fully complied
with. Then degree has to be withdrawn
and only then the thesis can be
submitted fore reevaluation.
The final decision for formal
passing of the grace after second
RDC has not been taken by Board of
Management till date and this is also
enough ground for declaring the
degree non-ist.
(vii) The members of the Board of
Management also raised doubts on
the noticing on page no. 8 of the
notesheet (Annexure-III) wherein
Shri Rawat had been referred as
External student as mentioned on
page while he was working in FRI
and the certificate given by the
Supervisor Late Dr. K.S. Bhandari in
the thesis also confirms that Shri
Rawat had worked under Dr.
Bhandari's supervision for more than
twenty four months and put his
attendance for more than two
hundred days in conducting the
experiments at Forest Research
Institute. Since in his registration
letter it was not mentioned whether
he was registered as external or
internal student but at the time of
processing of the file to DG for the
appointment of two external
examiners for evaluation of the
thesis his external student status
might have been mentioned on the
page no. 8 of the notesheet to grant
the favour of exemption from the
pursuance of computer application
and statistics analysis course which
was not required for external
17
students and which was not
undertaken by Shri Rawat.
Finally, the Board of Management
unanimously resolved that there are
moral and ethical lapses in the case
regarding award of Ph.D. Degree to Shri
G.S. Rawat.
The Board of Management being
the principal executive body of the FRI
(Deemed) University was of the
unanimous decision that the Ph.D.
Degree awarded to Shri G.S. Rawat
should be withdrawn/ revoked as this
is the clear-cut case of academic
impropriety and misuse of powers.
Board of Management being the
principal executive body of the FRI
(Deemed) university vested with the
powers to take all necessary decision
for smooth and efficient functioning of
the institute, and having fully satisfied
itself that Shri G.S. Rawat the then
officiating Director, F.R.I. and Ex-
Officio V.C. of F.R.I. (Deemed)
University is guilty of gross moral,
ethical and academic impropriety and
serious procedural lapses resolves to
withdraw the degree awarded to Shri
G.S. Rawat.
The meeting then ended with
thanks to the chair.
Sd/-25/7/2011 Sd/28/7/2011
(S.S. Negi) (V.K. Bahuguna)
Director Director General
Member Secretary Chairman"
7. Pursuant to the same, it is that Annexure
No. 32 was issued. Annexure No. 32 reads as follows:
"No. 3641/1-1/2007-FRIDU
18
Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University
P.O.I.P.E. Kaulagarh Road
Dehradun- 248 195
Dated 2nd December, 2011
ORDER
In pursuance of the resolutions of the Board of Management meeting held on 14- 07-2011, the Director General, ICFRE and Chancellor, FRI (Deemed) University has withdrawn the Ph.D. degree on "Exploration of bore hole method of resin tapping in Pinus roxburghii Sarg" awarded on 13th June, 2002 (issued on 27.01.2005, Enroll No. 9607/Ph.D./353) by FRI (Deemed) University to Sh. G.S. Rawat Sd/-
(Dr. V.R.R. Singh) Director, FRI & Vice Chancellor FRI (Deemed) University"
8. Pleadings have been exchanged.
9. We heard Mr. M.C. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Davesh Upreti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 4.
10. The contentions of Mr. M.C. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner can be noted as follows:
He would submit that a perusal of the meeting of the Board of Management dated 14.07.2011 makes it very clear that the Board of Management has already taken a decision to withdraw the Ph.D. This 19 was done in violation of principles of natural justice. No notice was issued to him. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before the said decision was taken. He would submit that essentially there was an impropriety, which was, if at all, committed by the petitioner in chairing the meeting of the R.D.C. in his capacity as the Director of the Forest Research Institute on 13.06.2002; but, upon it being noticed, a new meeting of R.D.C. took place subsequently. As we have already noticed, the new meeting, which was not chaired by the petitioner, has again recommended the grant of Ph.D. w.e.f. 13.06.2002. Therefore, the impropriety in the petitioner chairing the earlier meeting stood cured. As far as nominating Mr. Sharma as Chairman of the R.D.C. is concerned, it is a case of the petitioner that he was nominated by his predecessor. In regard to removal of Mr. P.L. Soni, which is referred to at the instance of the petitioner, it is submitted that he was not a subject expert. It is submitted that the subject expert was, actually, Mr. N.S. Bisht and, therefore, he was substituted and Mr. P.L. Soni never objected. He would next complain about the procedure adopted in taking the decision dated 14.07.2011 by the Board of Management. It is his case that, under the Memorandum of Objects of the F.R.I., which is a deemed University, there should be 14 members of the Board of Management. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure No. 29-A) would show that only eight persons were present. He would further complain that it was, actually, included 20 as a supplementary agenda, though, having regard to the significance of the matter, it should have been listed as the main agenda in the meeting. Next, he drew our attention to the Ordinance relating to the grant of Ph.D. He would submit that the matter relating to the withdrawal of Ph.D. is the matter, which is actually in the domain of the Academic Council. We noticed also the Ordinance relating to the grant of Ph.D. In regard to the supremacy or relevance of the Academic Council, he sought to draw support from Clause 8.12 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows:
"8.12. In case both the original examiners approve the thesis or on the event of the divergence of opinion between the two, if the third examiner approves the thesis, the candidate shall be called upon to appear for a test before a Viva-Voce Board comprising the Supervisor and one of the two examiners approved by the Director who approved the thesis. If the Viva-
Voce Board is satisfied, the case shall be reported to the RDC and the Academic Council for the award of Ph.D. degree.
Provided that if a Viva-Voce is not in a position to conduct the Viva-Voce examination, the Director may looking to the special circumstances of the case, appoint an alternative Viva-Voce examiner."
We also noticed Clause 9.2 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows:
"9.2 Notwithstanding anything contained in these ordinances, any question, which is not covered by these ordinances, or any difficulty arising out 21 of these ordinances shall be dealt with by the Academic Council."
11. Per contra, the stand of the respondents appears to be that there were serious lapses in the matter of grant of Ph.D. Quite apart from the fact that the petitioner had chaired the R.D.C. on 13.06.2002, which shows that the petitioner was acting in an issue, which involves his own interest, it should not have been done. The conduct of the petitioner in removing Mr. P.L. Soni, the subject expert and substituting him with somebody else also cannot be justified. It is submitted that the entire matter was elaborately considered by the Board of Management, as is evident from Annexure No.29-A dated 14.07.2011 and it is further submitted that after the meeting took place on 14.07.2011, the petitioner was served with Annexure No. 29 notice calling upon him to give his explanation, which he did not. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case where the petitioner was not given any opportunity, as perusal of Annexure No. 32 would show that there is no reply given by the petitioner to the notice.
12. It is reiterated by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the Board of Management is a supreme executive body. It is contended that this can be established with reference to the U.G.C. notification dated 21.05.2010, namely, U.G.C. (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations, 2010. Therein, under Clause 4.4.(xi) under the head Powers of the Board of Management, it is provided as follows:
22"4.4.(xi) :
To approve the award of Degrees and diplomas based on the results of examinations and tests and to confer, grant or award degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic titles and distinctions."
13. Therefore, it is contended that it is indeed the Board of Management, which has a power also to withdraw the degree. In fact, various irregularities, which are pointed out in the meeting dated 14.07.2011 are reiterated before us. He also pointed out that, as per his own case, as projected in the rejoinder affidavit, it would tend to show that the petitioner accepts the authority of the Board of Management in the matter.
14. By the impugned order/proceedings dated 14.07.2011, we noticed that the Board of Management, after adverting to various facts, has unanimously resolved to withdraw the Ph.D. awarded to the petitioner, as this is a clear cut case of academic impropriety and misuse of powers. It is stated further that the Board of Management, being the principal executive body vested with the powers to take all necessary decisions for smooth efficient functioning and having been fully satisfied that the petitioner is guilty of gross moral, ethical and academic impropriety, resolves to withdraw the degree awarded to Mr. G.S. Rawat. It is, thereafter, that Annexure No. 29 is issued by the Registrar referring to various aspects and we may notice paragraph nos. 12 to 14, which we have already referred to above. There can be 23 no doubt that the principles of natural justice are salutary principles required to be observed when a right or legitimate expectation is sought to be taken away or affected by a public body. It is indeed one of the grounds for judicial review. The decision making process must not be legally flawed. One of the incontestable elements of judicial review is to interfere unless it is a case of complete act of futility, in a case, where the decision maker has flouted fundamental principles of natural justice, namely, audi alteram partem. In this case, a perusal of the decision taken on 14.07.2011 (Annexure No. 29-A) makes it clear that the Board has already, after the discussion amongst the eight members available, taken a unanimous decision to resolve and what is more to withdraw the Ph.D. finding him guilty of various lapses. It is, thereafter, that the notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner had not given any reply; but, the decision maker having made up his mind in a matter of this magnitude having such far reaching repercussions on the career of the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained. Therefore, we would think that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this ground alone and, therefore, we need not go into the other contentions of the merits including the contention that the meeting was called without giving notice to all the members or that it was included in the supplementary agenda instead of main agenda and the other aspects relating to the merit of the matter.
2415. Therefore, the writ petition will stand allowed. Annexure No. 29, Annexure No. 29-A and Annexure No. 32 will stand quashed. As we have already noticed, we base our judgment on the ground that there has been occasioned gross violation of the principle of natural justice and we make it clear that we have not gone into any other contentions and we also leave it open to the competent body to take steps, if advised, to withdraw the Ph.D. degree awarded to the petitioner, in which case, we leave open all the contentions available to the petitioner also. We are also making it clear that we have not pronounced on the other contentions which have been raised by the respondents as regards the merits of the matter.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
20.11.2017
Arpan