Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Accordingly, it was argued by Shri P. N. Dubey that it is not a fit case for interference and therefore, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

8- In rebuttal, Shri Arvind Shrivastava took me again through the material available on record and indicated that in the charge sheet seven charges were levelled with regard to misbehaviour of the petitioners with Shri G. S. Marko and Shri S. K. Tiwari. Thereafter when the dismissal orders were issued two more incidents pertaining to the agitation and misbehavior with Shri C. K. Tekchandani have been added for dispensing with the enquiry, however with regard to these two subsequent incidents there is no police report, no complaint by the University to any authority, no FIR, no criminal case is registered and therefore, merely on the basis of certain documents procured or manufactured by the University, action taken is nothing but a false and fabricated case made against the petitioners only on paper for dispensing with the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 19(ii). It is argued by Shri Arvind Shrivastava that based on the documents produced by the University the allegations against the petitioner about intimidating the witnesses or the enquiry officer is not established and therefore, it is not a fit case where the documents can be taken cognizance of and the action upheld. Accordingly, he emphasized that documents adduced is not sufficient enough to make out a case and therefore, he seeks for interference into the matter.

25- Similar is the position with the third Enquiry Officer, one Shri R.P.S. Baghel, HOD, Department of Animal Nutrition and Food Technology, who again on 30.7.2003 submits a letter - Annexure R/18 saying that he is unable to conduct the inquiry and he is also appointed as Enquiry Officer on 29.7.2003.

26- It may be taken note of that except for referring to appointment of Enquiry Officer on 29.7.2003, no order is produced appointing the persons as Enquiry Officer and during the course of hearing of the writ petition, Shri P.N. Dubey simply stated that in a meeting conducted of all the Officers, these persons gave the letters. When, how, under whose instructions the meeting is conducted; what was the necessity for holding such a meeting is not clear; no minutes of such meeting is produced; and, there is no averment with regard to conduct of any such meeting. Under such circumstances, an assumption can be made that the letters with regard to the Enquiry Officers, expressing their inability to conduct the inquiry can be a procured document only to create an excuse for not conducting the inquiry. 27- Similarly, the other five letters may be taken note of. Annexure R/11 is a communication made by Shri V.P. Singh, Dean of the College, who informed the Registrar on 28.7.2003 that he is receiving threatening calls from Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Rasool Shah. Shri V.P. Singh, it is stated is a witness in the inquiry. However, in the charge-sheet issued to the petitioners and in the list of witnesses as indicated hereinabove and in Annexure III, to the charge-sheet, Shri V.P. Singh is not shown as a witness. It is, therefore, not known as to how he is being threatened when he is not even a witness in the departmental inquiry.