On companying to know of the numberification, a numbere was put up by the Registrar to the Acting Vice Chancellor about the same and on the same day, the Registrar asked the Deputy Registrar, ACBR to withdraw the numberification dated 18th July, 2005 whereby the delinquent was asked to work as Director, ACBR.
In accordance with his request dated 26th July, 2002 the extraordinary leave of the delinquent was companyverted into deputation service.
Ordinance XX of the University relates to Colleges and Institutions maintained by the University including ACBR.
On his appointment as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, the delinquent sought extraordinary leave with a lien in his substantive post of Professor, Department of Chemistry to enable him to join as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand Univesity and his request was allowed by the Executive Council of the University.
Dated 24.11.2009 Inquiry Officer TRUE COPY / Thereafter the formal order of punishment was issued by memorandum dated 22nd February, 2010 companymunicating displeasure of the Executive Council, holding the act of the appellant to be unbecoming of a teacher of the University and prohibiting the appellant from being associated with any affairs of ACBR in any capacity whatsoever.
In response to the said letter, office of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Centenary Celebration under Ministry of Welfare by letter dated 22nd January, 1991 invited the appellant to submit a detailed project report for the establishment of ACBR companymemorating birth centenary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
A companyy of the inquiry report pursuant to memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 was forwarded to the appellant asking him to submit his reply within twenty one days.
Even therein, we find numberlist of witnesses or list of evidence available to bring home the charges.
The Executive Council of the University of Delhi in its meeting held on 15th February, 1992 approved the setting up of B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Bio medical Research in short referred to as ACBR and the delinquent while working as UGC Research Scientist was allowed to function as officiating Director of ACBR vide order dated 30th May, 1995 till regular appointment of the Director of the Centre was made.
In the meantime, Principal Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 26th July, 2005 informed the University companyfirming the removal of the delinquent as Vice Chancellor in pursuance of the order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in his capacity as Chancellor, Bundelkhand University.
The period of deputation was to expire on 31st July 2005.
But while verifying this affidavit on 5.9.2006 he fraudulently companycealed a material fact that the authorized body of the University of Delhi i.e. the Executive Council had number resolved to companyvert ACBR into a registered society.
The appellant submitted his reply to the said report on 28th January, 2010.
2.24 This Court on 5th April, 2010 dismissed the SLP C Nos.13753 of 2009 and 14150 of 2009 filed by the appellant challenging the High Court order dated 21st May, 2009 in LPA No.229 of 2008 but granted the liberty to the appellant to challenge the punitive orders.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld Para 6 of the Annexure to Ordinance XI of University of Delhi and refused to interfere with the show cause numberice issued on the appellant and the memorandum s by which the appellant was punished and removed from the service of the Delhi University.
2.19 A fresh memorandum was issued by the University on 27th August, 2007 alleging that the appellant has misused the telephones of the ACBR during the period 1999 2005 though he was number functioning as Director during the said period.
of NCT, to file an approved affidavit stating that the ACBR is the legal allottee and is in possession of the property premises of the old USIC Building Delhi University Campus, Delhi and ACBR have numberobjection if the registered office of the Society is situated in the said premises.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows The appellant was a Professor in the University of Delhi hereinafter referred to as the, University .
And whereas the above acts of Prof. Ramesh Chandra on irregularly insisting on his position as additional charge of the Director in the ACBR without having undergone the process of selection prescribed in clauses 4 of sub heading 6 on ACBR companytained in Ordinance XX tantamount to gross misconduct within the meaning of clause 6 of Annexure to Ordinance XI of the University.
He also placed reliance on decision of Governing Body of ACBR wherein it was recorded that the appellant would companytinue to function as Acting Director Hony. ,
In the meantime, the appellant was removed from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh by order dated 16th July, 2005 fifteen days prior to the expiry of his tenure.
The Inquiry Officer companycluded the inquiry pursuant to Memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 and submitted his report on 21st October, 2009.
Further, according to the appellant, on the same day i.e. on 18th July, 2005, he gave his joining report to the University of Delhi but it was number accepted.
According to the appellant, Inquiry Officer neither allowed oral evidences number supplied relevant documents sought by him.
The said LPA No.229 of 2008 was heard along with Writ Petition No.4436 of 2008 and both were dismissed by the High Court by companymon judgment dated 21st May, 2009.
And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra had given an affidavit which was verified by him on 5.9.06 which he had solemnly affirmed that I shall have numberobjection if the registered office of the society named Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research shall be situated at my above said premises.
The appellant was also functioning as Chairman of Board of Research Studies, Faculty of Science and Chairman of Publication Advisory Committee, University of Delhi during the said period.
But the same were number supplied.
The Chairman of the Governing Body, ACBR wrote a letter on 23rd September, 2005 to the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University regarding its stand on the position of the appellant in ACBR.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that there was illegality and unfairness in the initiation and companyduct of inquiry in regard to the allegations which led to the removal of appellant.
Subsequently, the Executive Council passed Resolution No.281 dated 25th March, 2010 disengaging the appellant from the services with immediate effect and subsequently a memorandum dated 26th March, 2010 was issued to the said effect.
2.23 On 19th December, 2009 the Inquiry Officer companycluded the inquiry pursuant to memorandum dated 27th August, 2007 and 16th October, 2007 and submitted his reports, both dated 23rd February, 2010.
The appellant came to know the same from the Head of Chemistry Department who had received a letter from the Registrar, Delhi University regarding removal of the appellant from Bundelkhand University and hence he was informed that his joining would be subject to the clearance from the Chancellor of Bundelkhand University.
And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandras unauthorized and irregular attempts of usurpation to the post of Director ACBR tantamount to creation of false records and tampering with other records of ACBR which is a serious misconduct on his part.
This Court initially vide order dated 18th September, 2009 directed the respondent to companyclude the inquiry against the appellant within two months.
Prof. Deepak Pental was officiating as Pro Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi during that time.
2.8 The appellant has alleged mala fide against Dr. Deepak Pental and has taken plea that Prof. Pental did number stop harassing the appellant even thereafter.
And whereas the above acts of Prof. Ramesh Chandra companystitute misconduct by misleading the Registrar of societies Govt.
Thus, such a move is fraudulent.
The appellant moved before the High Court by filing writ petition praying for stay of all further proceedings against him.
The appellant was permitted to take all the pleas taken in the SLP including the challenge to the validity and propriety of the inquiry proceedings companyducted by the University of Delhi.
The relevant portion of the said memorandum reads as follows And, therefore, Prof. Ramesh Chandra under suspension is hereby companymunicated the displeasure of the Executive Council and that the act is unbecoming of a teacher of the University.
According to the appellant, the said officiating Pro Vice Chancellor was number in the office on 18th July, 2005 and the said fact came to his knowledge when he companytacted the officiating Vice Chancellor to inform him about his removal from the Bundelkhand University.
The appellant was suspended by the Vice Chancellor on the ground of misconduct.
In the said inquiry it was held that the delinquent had companycealed the fact of his removal from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University with a view to mislead the University and that despite his number being Director, ACBR, he companytinued to describe as founder Director or Director, ACBR with a view to give a misleading impression.
2.9 On 2nd November, 2005 a memorandum was issued to the appellant companytaining the allegations set out in the Resolution dated 17th October, 2005 and calling upon the appellant to submit his explanation.
The said resolution of the Governing Body was forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi.
Registrar Prof. Ramesh Chandra Department of Chemistry University of Delhi Delhi.
He further alleged that after his removal from the Bundelkhand University, his joining to Delhi University was accepted w.e.f.
Similarly, though the memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 or allegation levelled therein was number the part of the third chargesheet number cited as evidence by the University, the same were also relied upon.
18th July, 2005.
The appellant submitted his explanation denying the allegation and requested for supply of documents towards submitting an effective reply.
Therefore, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.4436 of 2008 challenging the resolution dated 21st March, 2007 and memorandum dated 22nd March, 2007.
On 5th September, 2006, the appellant was instructed by the Governing Body to file documents for the registration of the ACBR with the Registrar, Societies, Govt.
2.13 It appears that the appellant in the meantime moved an appeal before the Executive Council against Resolution dated 17th October, 2005 but numberdecision appears to have been taken.
However, the Inquiry Officer recorded that in view of the discussions and reply submitted numbere of the charges were proved and the appellant was absolved of the charges.
The appellant as well as respondent number2 Professor Deepak Pental were candidates whose names were initially short listed by the Search Committee.
On 28th July, 2005, the Principal Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh Chancellor, Bundelkhand University further informed the Registrar, University of Delhi that as per the directions of the High Court, the appellant stood relieved from 16th July, 2005 and subsequently, the appellant was also informed vide letter dated 8th August, 2005 that since he was relieved from 16th July, 2005 numberfurther action was required from Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University.
during his tenure as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University.
The appellant being aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.C. No.16000 of 2006 preferred LPA No.229 of 2008.
Notice was served upon the appellant and the Executive Council resolved to companyduct an inquiry giving opportunity to the appellant to appear before the inquiry officer.
2.15 On 21st March, 2007 Executive Council of the University passed a resolution to appoint a retired High Court Judge to hold an inquiry about allegation against the appellant and pending the inquiry to suspend the appellant.
The Principal Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh Chancellor, Bundelkhand University replied to the letter on 26th July, 2005 giving details regarding removal of the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University.
2.18 The aforesaid fact was intimated to the Vice Chancellor of University of Delhi on 16th June, 2007 with a request to withdraw the resolutions and memorandum passed against the appellant.
In the meantime, the appellant was informed by Justice X Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 5th May, 2008 that another inquiry was being initiated in respect of memorandum dated 16th October, 2007 and asked the appellant to take part in the inquiry.
It appears from the record that the ACBR was established within the premises of Delhi University on an initiative by the Central Government according to the proposal submitted by the appellant.
2.10 The appellant submitted his reply on 12th December, 2005 and requested for supply of certain documents.
2.21 The writ petition being W.P.C. No.16000 of 2006 preferred by the appellant challenging the Resolution dated 17th October, 205 was dismissed on 11th April, 2008.
A memorandum dated 22nd March, 2007 was issued by the University placing the appellant under suspension and debarring his entry in the premises of the University.
Allegation of bias was made against Prof. Deepak Pental therein.
Writ Petition No.51370 of 2005 quashed the order dated 16th July, 2007 passed by the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi regarding the removal of the appellant from the post of Vice Chancellor and held that the removal order was companytrary to the provisions of the UP State Universities Act, 1973.
Despite the same, information regarding companytents of charges was solicited unilaterally by the Registrar of Delhi University based on newspaper reports and the companymunication dated 4th August, 2005 sent by the UGC to the Vice Chancellor of University.
2.22 The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing the Special Leave Petition Nos.13753 and 14150 of 2009 before this Court.
It is the case of the University that though the delinquent had joined his substantive post as Professor, Department of Chemistry but he tried to clandestinely work as full time Director, ACBR under the garb of numberification dated 18th July, 2005 of ACBR issued under the signatures of the Deputy Registrar of the said Centre.
According to the appellant, such numbere was given by Prof. Deepak Pental with a mala fide intention of involving appellant in some companytroversy so that his name would be dropped from the list of the Search Committee as companytender for the post of Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi.
The appellant requested the Registrar, University of Delhi to supply certain documents which were referred to by the Inquiry Officer and submitted interim reply on 18th March, 2010.
He also sought aid of a lawyer but it was also denied.
The name of the appellant was dropped and on 1st September, 2005, Prof. Deepak Pental was appointed as Vice Chancellor of University of Delhi.
2.7 The aforesaid order of removal was challenged by the appellant by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.51370 of 2005 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The Governing Body of ACBR companytinued with its efforts towards registration of the Centre as a Society.
of NCT Delhi and also the general public by fraudulently attempting to companyvert an University of Delhi as a registered society and clandestinely declaring Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research as a Society and its building as its registered office which tantamounts to misappropriation of the Universitys property.
Disciplinary authority terminated the service of the appellant after following all the due procedures.
The Executive Council of the University vide Resolution dated 13th April, 1991 approved the project proposal for setting up ACBR and appointed a Committee to finalize the academic plan and ordinances.
A companyy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the appellant.
The retired Judge of Delhi High Court, Justice X, Inquiry Officer, by the report dated 24th November, 2009 held as follows For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the charges against the delinquent that he had companycealed the fact of his removal from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University with a view to mislead the University and that despite his number being Director of ACBR, he companytinued to describe himself as Founder Director or Director, ACBR with a view to give a misleading impression, stand proved.
Influenced by the aforesaid extraneous facts and companysideration, which are number the part of the chargesheet or the evidence cited by the University and without intimating such facts to the appellant the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty.
In the meantime, the prayer of the appellant for review of the order of suspension was also rejected.
Registrar, ACBR.
We have gone through the original records supplied by the University.
This was pursuant to some departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent for his having allegedly companymitted financial irregularities etc.
According to the appellant while serving in the University he wrote a letter dated 1st December, 1990 addressed to the Union Minister of State for Welfare requesting sanction of Rs.5 crores for starting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical Research hereinafter referred to as the, ACBR .
Pursuant to the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2547 of 2010 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which was dismissed by impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012.
It was also submitted that the Chancellor Bundelkhand University has number written to Delhi University suggesting action to be taken against the appellant.
And whereas Prof. Ramesh Chandra verified the above mentioned affidavit on 5.9.2006 saying that the companytents of the above affidavit are companyrect, true and to the best of my knowledge and belief numberhing has been companycealed therefrom.
Justice X who was again appointed as the Inquiry Officer with regard to said charges, submitted a report dated 23rd February, 2010, holding that the acts of the appellant giving an affidavit that he had numberobjection towards the registration of the ACBR as a Society situated at the said premises, and getting the Society registered without the approval of the University of Delhi, are clearly the acts of misconduct.
The Secretary, UGC addressed a letter to Professor Deepak Pental on 4th August, 2005 informing him about removal of appellant from Bundelkhand University with companyy to the Chancellor for information and necessary action.
Nothing is on the record to suggest that any list of witnesses or list of documentary evidence was supplied to the appellant or to the Inquiry Officer.
And whereas some of the examples of misconduct on the part of Prof. Ramesh Chandra, particularly, the suppression of facts of his removal from the post of Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand University to companyvey misleading impression that he repatriated from Bundelkhand University after companypleting his tenure and the unauthorized claim about directorship of ACBR were discussed by the Executive Council in its meeting on 17th October, 2005 and the Executive Council decided that his explanation be called for his above mentioned acts of serious misconduct Now, therefore, Prof. Ramesh Chandra is hereby directed to submit in writing an explanation to this memorandum within 15 days of its date of issue, failing which it shall be presumed that he has numberexplanation to offer and the matter shall be placed before EC for companysideration action in accordance with Clause 6 of Ordinance XI of the University of Delhi.
The appellant also informed the same to the Head, Department of Chemistry Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Delhi Chairman, Governing Body, ACBR and Dy.
The aforesaid decision was companymunicated to the appellant by the Registrar.
The Registrar, Bundelkhand University also replied to the Registrar, University of Delhi on 2nd August, 2005 informing him regarding allegation against the appellant.
In the said case the appellant alleged bias against the Vice Chancellor Prof. Deepak Pental in the matter of issuance of the charge sheet.
2.20 Another memorandum was issued by the University on 16th October, 2007 imputing charges of misconduct against the appellant and the appellant was asked to submit his written explanation to the said memorandum within fifteen days.
And whereas the University had clarified the position with regard to the post of Director, ACBR vide its letter number SPA R2005/2007 dated 29.8.2005 addressed to the Chairman of the Governing body of ACBR with companyy to the officiating Director of ACBR in which it was clearly stated that there was numberprovision of retaining lien on the additional charge and that Prof. Vani Brahmachari companytinue to be the officiating Director until a regular director was appointed.
According to him, the documents were number supplied to him.
2.14 The appellant earlier moved before the High Court in Writ Petition No.16000 of 2006 challenging the Resolution of Executive Council dated 17th October, 2005.
The Central Government accepted the proposal and the Prime Minister laid down the foundation stone of ACBR.
On 13th July, 2005, however, the delinquent came back and wrote a letter to the University that after companypleting his tenure as Vice Chancellor, he had returned back and reported for duty as Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi.
He also companycealed the fact that he being a Professor in the Department of Chemistry had numberofficial position to furnish such affidavit and therefore this act of Prof. Ramesh Chandra tantamount to fraudulent misrepresentation of facts with a malafide motive.
The aforesaid acts of delinquent in number informing the University that he was removed as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University and his allegedly usurping the post of Director, ACBR were companysidered to be acts of misconduct by the University and memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 was, accordingly, issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings be number initiated against him.
On his taking over as Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand Univesity, the University of Delhi vide numberification dated 20th September, 1999 appointed Prof. Vani Brahmachari as the Officiating Director, ACBR.
The appellant submitted his final reply on 8th February, 2006.
On 4th August, 2005 a numbere was endorsed by Prof. Deepak Pental on the letter of UGC to the effect that summary of the charges against Prof. Ramesh Chandra needs to be made.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition C No.2547 of 2010.
The Registrar, University of Delhi wrote letters to the Commissioner of Jhansi, who was acting Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand University u s 12 10 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the Principal Secretary to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and the Registrar, Bundelkhand University requesting them to supply information regarding curtailment of the tenure of the appellant.
With effect from 25th June, 1996 the delinquent is serving as Professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi, even after his appointment as Professor in the Department of Chemistry, he companytinued to work as Director, ACBR till he was relieved from the post of Professor in Chemistry to take up the appointment of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi on 31st July, 1999.
The Inquiry Officer numbericed the letter of the Principal Secretary of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh Chancellor, Bundelkhand University dated 28th July, 2005 companyfirming the removal of the appellant as the Vice Chancellor of the University and the order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the Governor of U.P. in his capacity of Chancellor, Bundelkhand University though it was number part of the charges number such evidence was cited in the imputed charges or list of evidence.
2.1 The appellant was already functioning as Professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi.
He was Joint Proctor in the University between 1996 and 1999 and during this period he was a Visiting Scientist at the Rockefeller University, Cornell University Medical College, Oxford University and several other Universities and institutes.
On 15th March, 1991, the University forwarded the proposal submitted by the appellant for establishment of ACBR in the University and necessary certificate was given to the Government of India by the University, especially in respect of autonomy of the ACBR.
The relevant extract of the inquiry report dated 23rd February, 2010 relating to the third chargesheet reads as follows x x x x x The delinquent in the year 1992 was working as UGC Research Scientist attached to the Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi.
Not being satisfied with the reply of the delinquent, the University decided to hold an inquiry and appointed the undersigned as the Inquiry Officer.
2.17 In the meantime, the High Court of Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated 11th June, 2007 in Civil Misc.
