Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Vikas Bhola vs Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University on 30 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 245/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 245/2024
Reserved on: - 04.08.2025
Pronounced on: - 30.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
VIKAS BHOLA, AGED 37 YEARS,
SON OF SH. O.P. BHOLA,
R/0 11/3 TRIKUTA NAGAR,
JAMMU.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Ms. Veenu Gupta)
Versus
1. SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI UNIVERSITY, KAKRIAL, P.O.
KAKRIAL DISTRICT UDHAMPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 245/2024
2.REGISTRAR, SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI UNIVERSITY,
KAKRIAL, P.O. KAKRIAL DISTRICT UDHAMPUR
3.SH. R.N.K. BAMEZAI, SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI
UNIVERSITY, VICE CHANCELLOR, KAKRIAL, P.O. KAKRIAL
DISTRICT UDHAMPUR
4. GENDER SENSITIZATION COMMITTEE AGAINST SEXUAL
HARASSMENT (GSCASH) THROUGH ITS CHAIR PERSON,
SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI UNIVERSITY, KAKRIAL, P.O.
KAKRIAL DISTRICT UDHAMPUR
5. APPEAL COMMITTEE, GENDER SENSITIZATION
COMMITTEE AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT (GSCASH)
SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI UNIVERSITY, KAKRIAL, PO.
KAKRIAL DISTRICT UDHAMPUR
6. M. C.L. RAZDAN, EX-DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPE DESIGN, SMVD
UNIVERSITY,UDHAMPUR
7.EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI
UNIVERSITY, KAKRIAL, P.O. KAKRIAL DISTRICT
UDHAMPUR
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 245/2024
8.DEAN, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, SHRI MATA VAISHNO
DEVI UNIVERSITY, KAKRIAL, P.O. KAKRIAL DISTRICT
UDHAMPUR
....Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. A.P. Singh, ld. counsel for SMVD University)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 245/2024
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No. 2678/2012 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No/245/2024 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing office order No. SMVDU/Adm./12/380-387 dated 12-12-2012 issued by the respondent no.1 and 2 together with the decision of Executive Council taken in its 18th meeting held on 01.09.2012 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the services of University, being totally illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the SMVD University Statute.
b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing all the proceedings conducted by the respondent no.5 on the appeal preferred by the petitioner being totally illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and have been conducted in sheer contravention to the well-settled principles of law.
c) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service as Lecturer and grant him all the consequential benefits.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 245/2024
d) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court, in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2678/2012, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and registered as T.A. No. 245/2024 before this Tribunal. The applicant, Vikas Bhola, was appointed as Lecturer in the School of Architecture and Landscape Design of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (SMVDU) vide order dated 19.04.2006 after undergoing a duly conducted selection process.
b) The applicant asserts that during the course of his service, he earned appreciation and professional recognition within the University owing to his academic performance and dedication.
According to him, such professional progress generated hostility and animosity, particularly on the part of respondent no. 6, the then Director of the School of Architecture and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 245/2024 Landscape Design, who allegedly nurtured personal bias and professional rivalry against the applicant.
c) It is the applicant's consistent case that respondent no. 6, motivated by malafides and personal interest, orchestrated the lodging of a false and fabricated complaint of sexual and mental harassment against him through a student. The said complaint, according to the applicant, was deliberately kept concealed and was never furnished to him despite repeated requests, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to effectively defend himself at the very threshold.
d) Upon receipt of the complaint, respondents 1 to 3, without independently verifying its authenticity or credibility, referred the matter to the Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH). The GSCASH, after a preliminary screening, decided to hold an enquiry and issued a communication dated 20.05.2011 to the applicant, disclosing certain alleged incidents and calling for his reply. However, the applicant was not supplied with the original complaint or the material relied upon.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: TA 245/2024
e) The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 23.05.2011
denying all allegations and again requested for supply of the complaint and supporting material. Despite this, the GSCASH proceeded to conduct an enquiry allegedly on an ex-parte basis, without associating the applicant meaningfully in the proceedings, without permitting cross-examination, and without supplying copies of statements or evidence.
f) The Enquiry Committee thereafter recommended multiple penalties, including non-assignment of teaching and academic evaluation, removal from administrative duties, withholding of one increment, and counseling with behavioral monitoring. Acting on these recommendations, respondents 1 and 2 issued a show cause notice dated 10.06.2011, to which the applicant submitted a comprehensive reply highlighting procedural violations, denial of natural justice, and bias in the conduct of the enquiry.
g) Notwithstanding the reply, respondents-imposed penalties vide order dated 01.07.2011. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal under Rule X(3) of the GSCASH Rules on HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 245/2024 15.07.2011. The applicant specifically challenged the constitution of the Appeal Committee, pointing out that it was not formed in accordance with Rule X (3) and that one of the members had earlier participated in the enquiry, rendering the appellate process vitiated by bias.
h) During pendency of the appeal, the penalties were implemented, thereby rendering the appellate remedy illusory. The appeal remained undecided for several months, compelling the applicant to approach the High Court through SWP No. 440/2012, which was disposed of with directions to decide the appeal within a stipulated period. Despite repeated judicial directions and contempt proceedings, the respondents failed to supply the appellate order or findings to the applicant in time.
i) Eventually, the Appeal Committee dismissed the appeal and recommended that the University authorities may decide the punishment. On this basis, the Executive Council, in its 18th meeting dated 01.09.2012, resolved to remove the applicant from service, leading to issuance of removal order dated 12.12.2012.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 :: TA 245/2024
j) The applicant contends that neither the GSCASH nor the
Appeal Committee ever recommended removal from service, and that the Executive Council exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing an enhanced punishment without a lawful recommendation, in violation of the GSCASH Rules, University Statutes, and settled principles of natural justice. The applicant assails the entire disciplinary action as vitiated by malafides, procedural impropriety, bias, denial of fair hearing, and double jeopardy.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, in their reply, have raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the Transfer Application.
It is contended that Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University is established under the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act, 1999 and functions under the control of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, which has been held not to be an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 245/2024 Consequently, it is pleaded that the University is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
b) The respondents further allege that the applicant has suppressed material facts, raised disputed questions of fact, and failed to demonstrate infringement of any fundamental or statutory right. On these grounds alone, dismissal of the petition has been sought.
c) On merits, the respondents submit that the complaint dated 06.05.2011 contained serious allegations of sexual, mental harassment and gender bias, which were received independently by respondents 3, 4 and 6. Considering the gravity of allegations, the matter was immediately referred to the GSCASH, constituted in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.
d) It is stated that the applicant was associated with the enquiry proceedings and afforded reasonable opportunity to submit replies and participate in the enquiry. The respondents deny that the enquiry was ex-parte or conducted under pressure or HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 245/2024 influence. The recommendations of the GSCASH, according to the respondents, were made after due consideration of evidence and statements.
e) With regard to constitution of the Appeal Committee, it is asserted that the same was constituted in accordance with Rule X (3) of the GSCASH Rules. The respondents specifically deny that any member of the Appeal Committee was disqualified or had participated in the earlier enquiry. It is further contended that since the Appeal Committee conducted a fresh enquiry, the doctrine of merger applies, and earlier penalties merged into the appellate proceedings.
f) The respondents submit that the Appeal Committee, after conducting enquiry, dismissed the appeal and recommended that University authorities may decide the punishment. The Executive Council, being the appointing and disciplinary authority under the University Statutes, was competent to impose the penalty of removal under Statute 24(2), after issuing a show cause notice as required under Statute 24(4).
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 12 :: TA 245/2024
g) It is further pleaded that penalties under GSCASH Rules are
illustrative and not exhaustive, and that nothing in the Rules restricts the University from imposing appropriate punishment under its Statutes once misconduct stands established. The respondents deny allegations of malafides, bias, victimisation, or double jeopardy, and assert that the applicant was removed strictly in accordance with law, rules, and statutory procedure.
h) Accordingly, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2678/2012, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and was registered as T.A. No. 245/2024. The applicant has assailed the order dated 12.12.2012 whereby he was removed from service as Lecturer in Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, along with the proceedings conducted by the Gender Sensitization Committee HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 245/2024 Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), the Appeal Committee and the consequential decision of the Executive Council.
7. The applicant was appointed as Lecturer in the School of Architecture and Landscape Design in the year 2006. During the course of his service, a written complaint dated 06.05.2011 alleging sexual, mental harassment and gender bias was lodged by a female student and received independently by the University authorities. Considering the seriousness of allegations, the matter was referred to GSCASH, a statutory body constituted in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.
8. The applicant was informed of the allegations, called upon to submit his reply, and was associated with the enquiry proceedings. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, GSCASH recorded findings adverse to the applicant and recommended certain penalties. The University imposed interim penalties permissible under the Rules and the applicant preferred a statutory appeal under Rule X (3) of the GSCASH Rules.
9. The Appeal Committee conducted a fresh enquiry, examined witnesses, afforded opportunity to the applicant, dismissed the appeal and recommended that the University authorities decide the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 245/2024 punishment. Acting upon the said recommendation, the Executive Council, being the appointing and disciplinary authority under the University Statutes, after issuing show cause notice and considering the applicant's reply, resolved to remove the applicant from service. The impugned order dated 12.12.2012 was thus issued.
10. The controversy essentially revolves around:
Whether the enquiry proceedings suffered from violation of principles of natural justice;
Whether the constitution and functioning of the Appeal Committee was illegal;
Whether the Executive Council lacked competence to impose the penalty of removal;
Whether the punishment of removal is disproportionate or vitiated by malafides?
(A) Maintainability and Jurisdiction
11. Though an objection has been raised regarding amenability of the respondent University to writ jurisdiction, the Tribunal, considering the nature of service dispute and the fact that the matter stood transferred from the High Court and has been adjudicated on merits HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 245/2024 for several years, proceeds to decide the matter on merits rather than relegating it on a technical objection. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the applicant on this count.
(B) Validity of Enquiry under GSCASH
12. The record clearly reveals that the complaint contained serious allegations of sexual and mental harassment. In such matters, the University is under a statutory and constitutional obligation to act promptly and decisively. The enquiry was conducted by GSCASH strictly in accordance with its Rules framed in compliance with Vishaka guidelines.
13. The applicant was informed of the allegations, allowed to submit replies, and was given opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Merely because the applicant was not supplied the verbatim copy of the complaint at the initial stage does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry, particularly when the substance of allegations was conveyed and adequate opportunity to defend was granted. Procedural fairness does not demand a ritualistic or hyper-technical approach but a reasonable opportunity, which stands satisfied in the present case.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 245/2024
14. The plea of "ex-parte enquiry" is belied by the record itself and is rejected.
(C) Constitution and Role of Appeal Committee
15. Rule X (3) of the GSCASH Rules empowers constitution of an Appeal Committee and vests it with authority to conduct enquiry, summon witnesses and record findings. The contention that the Appeal Committee was illegally constituted is without substance. The explanation furnished by the respondents regarding nomination of members in order to ensure expeditious disposal is plausible and does not violate the spirit of the Rule.
16. More importantly, the Appeal Committee conducted a fresh enquiry, recorded statements, allowed cross-examination and thereafter dismissed the appeal. Once a fresh enquiry is conducted at the appellate stage, the doctrine of merger squarely applies and the findings of the original enquiry lose independent existence. (D) Power of Executive Council to Impose Removal
17. The most vehement argument of the applicant is that the Appeal Committee did not specifically recommend removal from service. This submission is legally misconceived. The Appeal Committee is HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 245/2024 not the disciplinary authority. It is only required to record findings and recommend that appropriate action be taken. The power to impose penalty vests exclusively with the appointing authority, i.e., the Executive Council, under Statute 24 of the University Statutes.
18. Once misconduct of serious nature involving sexual harassment stands proved, the Executive Council is fully competent to impose any penalty including removal from service. There is no legal requirement that the Appeal Committee must recommend a specific punishment. The show cause notice issued prior to removal further satisfies the mandate of natural justice.
(E) Proportionality and Gravity of Misconduct
19. Sexual harassment at workplace, particularly in an academic institution involving students, strikes at the very root of dignity, safety and institutional discipline. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such misconduct warrants strict action and zero tolerance.
20. The penalty of removal cannot be termed disproportionate or shocking to the conscience, considering the nature of charges proved. Sympathy or misplaced leniency in such matters would undermine the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 245/2024 confidence of students and defeat the object of protective jurisprudence evolved under Vishaka.
(F) Allegations of Malafides and Bias
21. The allegations of personal grudge and malafides against respondent no. 6 remain bald, unsubstantiated and unsupported by cogent evidence. It is settled law that malafides must be pleaded with particulars and proved by clear material. Mere assertions, conjectures or insinuations do not meet the legal standard of proof.
22. On an overall conspectus of facts, record and law, this Tribunal is satisfied that:
the enquiry was conducted in accordance with prescribed procedure;
principles of natural justice were duly complied with; the Appeal Committee acted within its jurisdiction; the Executive Council was competent to impose the penalty of removal; and the impugned action does not suffer from arbitrariness, illegality or perversity.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: TA 245/2024 No case for interference under the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is made out.
23. Accordingly, Transfer Application No. 245/2024 is dismissed.
The impugned order dated 12.12.2012 and the disciplinary action taken against the applicant are upheld.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV