Dr. Nand Kishore Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4422 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                W.P. (C) 2135 of 1992 & CM No. 865 of 2010

                                            Reserved on:    August 19, 2011
                                            Decision on: September 12, 2011

        DR. NAND KISHORE SHARMA                  ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Amit Khemka with
                                Mr. Saurabh Dhawan, Advocates.

                        versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. Satyender Chahar, Advocate
                                  for R-3 & R-4.
                                  Mr. Ravinder Dayal with
                                  Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advocates for
                                  applicant in CM No. 865/2010.

        CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

        1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
           allowed to see the judgment?                          No
        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                No
        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?    No

                            JUDGMENT

12.09.2011

1. The challenge in this writ petition by the Petitioner who was working as Principal of the Haryana Sanskrit Vidyapeeth („HSV‟), Respondent No. 4, is to an order dated 31st January 1992 issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee (`MC‟) of HSV in Palwal, District Faridabad in Haryana, terminating the Petitioner‟s services. The Petitioner also challenges the charge sheet dated 15th July 1991 and the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer (`EO‟) (impleaded as Respondent No. 5). The Petitioner prays for the consequential relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and arrears of wages.

2. Several years after this Court had issued Rule in 1997 the Petitioner filed CM No. 1465 of 2007 seeking to amend the writ petition. The purpose of the amendment was to implead the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (`RSS‟), Janak Puri, New Delhi through its Director as Respondent No. 6. It was stated that after filing of the present writ petition, the HSV on 3rd February 1999 one Prof. Sureshwar Sharma was appointed to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry. Prof. Sharma submitted his report to the

management of the HSV on 27th March 1999 exonerating the Petitioner and recommending his reinstatement. A copy of the said report was annexed (as Annexure P-32). It was resolved by the HSV on 14th December 1999 to reinstate the Petitioner but it was stated that the said decision will be implemented only after approval by Respondent No. 6. It was stated that Respondent No. 6 did not take any decision for more than six years despite representations by the Petitioner. Accordingly, a prayer was sought to be added directing Respondent No. 6 to approve the decision dated 14th December 1999 of the MC of the HSV. This amendment was allowed by this Court on 5th November 2008.

3. Thereafter CM No. 865 of 2010 was filed by Mr. Satish Chand Sharma seeking impleadment in the writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner had in paras 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17 and 38 made numerous allegations against him. Alternatively, it is prayed that these allegations should be directed to be deleted.

4. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that HSV has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition. It is submitted that the HSV is neither a statutory corporation nor an authority owned and controlled by the Government of India (`GoI‟) but only an establishment constituted by way of a scheme framed by the GoI. It is pointed out that the HSV is a separate entity with its own set of regulations. Secondly, it is submitted that the services of the Petitioner were purely contractual and the Petitioner cannot enforce a contract by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, it is submitted that the cause of action for the present writ petition has arisen in the State of Haryana as the Petitioner was working as Principal at the HSV at Baghola, Palwal, District Faridabad in Haryana. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Fourthly, it is submitted that the petition is full of false statements and conceals material facts. It is stated that the Petitioner was working as a Sanskrit teacher in a Government High School prior to his joining as Principal in HSV. On the basis of the certificates submitted by him, which later were found to be forged, the MC of the HSV issued him an appointment letter on 14th June 1989 in response to which the Petitioner joined duties on 19th June 1989.

5. On 23rd February 1990 the Department of Education in the Ministry of Human Resources Development (`HRD Ministry‟), GoI wrote to the Petitioner stating that

despite the letter dated 4th September 1989 of the HRD Ministry, he had not submitted his particulars regarding work experience in various institutes. He was, therefore, not permitted to draw pay and allowances with effect from 16th September 1989 till the issue was finally settled. On 28th February 1990, the Petitioner wrote to the HRD Ministry stating that the Petitioner had presented himself before the Assistant Secretary (Language) and one Mr. Dev Dutt, Section Officer, and concerned officer had examined his original certificates and given oral instructions that the Petitioner could work without worry. It is further stated that the budget meeting in which the budget for HSV was passed, no objection had been taken with regard to the release of pay of the Petitioner. For the release of the salary, the Petitioner filed writ petition being CWP No. 1730 of 1990 in this Court which came to be allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21st February 1991. This Court was informed that the payment had been stopped on a complaint that the Petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of teaching at the Acharya level. The Court observed that if at all an enquiry has to be held the Petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard. On 5th April 1991, a memo was issued by the MC of the HSV to the Petitioner asking him to clarify:

(a) whether he had obtained the permission from the Education Department, Government of Haryana for serving at the Sarvabhaum Sanskrit Vidyalaya (`SSV‟), Goverdhan, and if so, the original copy of the letter should be produced,

(b) evidence of teaching in various classes and duration of teaching periods was asked to be produced,

(c) clarification on whether the SSV existed during 1974-81, and if so, its location, names of other staff members, including the Principal together with the letter of affiliation to the examining body concerned,

(d) the places where the Petitioner was posted under the Haryana Government during 1974-81,

(e) whether the job at SSV was full-time or part-time, and

(f) give concrete evidence of teaching experience at the HSV, Bhagola as `Chhatra-Adhyapak‟.

6. On 12th April 1991, the Petitioner replied that the records asked for by the HSV were only available with the SSV at Goverdhan and it could enquire from that

institution as "I have not in possession of the said records of the Institution". He then stated that the SSV, Goverdhan did not have its own building and was functioning from a building known as Chander Sarover, Goverdhan at Mathura and that the said institution was affiliated to Dr. Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishya Vidyalaya, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh and therefore all records of the examinations could be obtained from the said institution. As regards the working experience with the Education Department, Government of Haryana, the Petitioner stated that these matters had already been enquired into by the then Deputy Education Adviser (Sanskrit) in the HRD Ministry and the report of that enquiry was available with the HSV.

7. Unhappy with the above reply by a letter dated 6th June 1991, the HSV placed the Petitioner under suspension. On 15th July 1991 a memo was issued enclosing a charge sheet. The charges inter alia were that the Petitioner had misrepresented to the HSV about his work experience and had been giving evasive replies when asked to produce the original experience certificates. The information given by him in the form of declaration was found to be inaccurate. The certificate produced by him was also not substantiated. It was found that the SSV, Goverdhan did not exist between 1974 and 1981, and therefore it appeared that the Petitioner, in order to obtain appointment as Principal, produced false and fabricated documents about his work experience. Likewise, about his teaching experience, the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Palwal, Government of Haryana had issued a letter stating that the Petitioner was in service of the Haryana Education Department from 4th August 1973 to 22nd June 1989 as Sanskrit Teacher. He had not resigned but had joined Respondent No. 4 as Principal, HSV on 19th May 1989. The Education Officer who enquired into the matter submitted a report dated 12th December 1990 affirming that the Petitioner had produced false and fabricated certificates with a dishonest intention.

8. In his reply dated 18th August 1991, Petitioner protested that the enquiry had been instituted with mala fide intentions under pressure from certain persons like Mr. Satish Chand Sharma, Mr. Gunjeshwar Chaudhary and Mr. R.K. Sharma, Assistant Legal Adviser in the HRD Ministry. It was claimed that there was an earlier report of one Mr. Som Dutt Dixit who had given a favourable report which was not considered. The Petitioner asserted that between 1st August 1974 to 31st July 1981 he was working as Honorary Lecturer at the SSV, Goverdhan in Mathura and that between 4th August 1973 to 18th June 1989 he was working as Sanskrit Teacher in the

Department of Education in Haryana and that during the academic sessions 1967-68 and 1968-69 he was working as a Student Teacher at the HSV. He, however, did not enclose any documents and maintained that the charges were vague.

9. On 15th January 1992, the Petitioner was furnished with the report of the EO and asked to respond. The EO observed that the enquiry both by Mr. Som Dutt Dixit and Mr. Vidhya Dhar Guleri in the HRD Ministry had found that the SSV in Goverdhan was a small institution having neither a class time-table nor any teaching programme. There were complaints against the Coordinator of the said institution Mr. Patti Ram Sharma. Mr. Som Dutt Dixit had in his report in 1989 stated that the experience certificates of the Petitioner were not authentic and recommended that the Petitioner be removed from the post of Principal. Thereafter in 1990 Mr. Vidhya Dhar Guleri also came to the same conclusion. It was observed in the report that despite the Petitioner having been given opportunities to prove the authenticity of the certificates he failed to do so. As regards work experience, the enquiry report found that the Petitioner was working as a teacher in the Haryana Government schools but had never worked either as a PGT or as a Lecturer in Sanskrit. He had somehow jumped to the post of Principal which was not permissible for him to do. While remaining in government service it was not possible to travel 30-40 kms in the evening everyday for teaching students in honorary capacity.

10. The Petitioner submitted his objections to the report which were considered. On 31st January 1992 Respondent No. 4 wrote to the Petitioner conveying the impugned decision of the Chairman of the MC terminating the services of the Petitioner.

11. In response to the writ petition, two counter affidavits were filed on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4. The first one was filed on 26th February 1993 enclosing a copy of the enquiry proceedings which shows that sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner to prove his educational qualifications as well as his experience certificates. The proceedings of the MC meeting held on 28th January 1992 to consider the report of Prof. Pushpendra Kumar, EO was enclosed to the affidavit. It was stated that after a detailed discussion on the report, the impugned order was passed.

12. One of the allegations made by the Petitioner in his rejoinder was that the termination of his services was without the approval of Respondent No. 1, i.e., the central government. The Petitioner questioned the validity of the meeting of the MC held on 28th January 1992, and contended that there was no record of discussion as annexed with the counter affidavit. Allegations were made against Dr. Satish Chandra Sharma to the effect that as Acting Principal he was guilty of embezzlement and he somehow wanted to have the Petitioner‟s services terminated.

13. An affidavit was filed by Dr. Gangadhar Panda, Deputy Education Adviser (Sanskrit) in the Department of Education, HRD Ministry, GoI stating that the HSV was an autonomous institution and the employees of HSV were not employees of the GoI. It was pointed out that the financial assistance under the scheme constitutes 95% of the recurring and 75% of the non-recurring expenditure. It was pointed that the MC was within its powers to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner.

14. As regards the claim in the amended writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 on 27th April 2010 pointing out that the subsequent enquiry ordered by Dr. Sachchdanand Hari Sakshi on 3rd September 1999 appointing Prof. Sureshwar Sharma as EO was invalid. The said report of Prof. Sureshwar Sharma was not accepted by the MC or by the RSS which was implementing the scheme on behalf of the GoI. The records of the enquiry by Prof. Sureshwar Sharma was taken by Dr. Sakshi, the then Chairman. As a result of this uncalled for action in extending undue favour to the Petitioner, Dr. Sakshi was removed from the post of Chairman, MC on 18th January 2000 and one Prof. Shridhar Vashisht was appointed in his place by a letter dated 18th January 2000. It is stated that the Resolutions dated 14th December 1999 were not confirmed in the next MC meeting held on 26th May 2000 and were rejected.

15. On the question whether a writ petition is maintainable against the Respondent HSV, this Court is of the view that this petition should not be dismissed only on that score, particularly since it has been pending in this Court since 1992. Moreover, for the reasons stated hereinafter, this Court does not find grounds having been made out on merits for interference. Consequently, the question whether the writ petition is maintainable against the HSV is left open for consideration in another appropriate case.

16. Turning to the merits, from the report of Prof. Pushpendra Kumar, EO it appears that the Petitioner was given numerous opportunities to establish the authenticity of the experience certificates as well as the education qualifications. The Petitioner failed to do so. Although the pleadings in this petition run into hundreds of pages, there is no document which has been placed on record to demonstrate that the Petitioner possessed the requisite experience for being appointed as Principal, HSV or that he possessed the necessary educational qualifications for such appointment. Further, it is anomalous that even while he was working in the Education Department, Government of Haryana between 1974 and 1981 he was also a teacher in the HSV at Goverdhan in Mathura. The Petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain this anomaly. Mr. Som Dutt Dixit in 1989 and later Dr. Vidhya Dhar Guleri in 1990, both officers of HRD Ministry, investigated into the claim of the Petitioner as to his past teaching experience. Both enquiries concluded that the experience certificates were fabricated. As regards the report of Dr. Sureshwar Sharma, since the records of those enquiry proceedings were taken away by the then Chairman, HSV who was later removed by the GoI from the post of Chairman of the MC, HSV, no importance can be attached to it. The MC of HSV did not accept that report. Consequently, the Petitioner can take no advantage of the subsequent enquiry proceedings which appear to be without the authority of law.

17. It has been pointed out in the written submissions of Respondents 3 and 4 that the District Education Officer, Faridabad, by a letter dated 5th October 1992, had asked the Petitioner to join the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Pali, which the Petitioner did. The Petitioner is stated to have retired from the service of the Government of Haryana on 31st July 2010 after receiving his entire retiral benefits. In fact in his written submissions, the Petitioner not only admits this but states that he should still be reinstated as Principal HSV. This is a wholly misconceived and legally untenable submission.

18. In the above circumstances, this Court finds absolutely no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such. With the dismissal of the writ petition, there is no need to pass any orders on the application, CM No. 865 of 2010, and it is disposed of as such.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 - akg