Delhi High Court
Anwar Alam vs Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors. on 13 February, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.873/2013
% 13th February, 2013
ANWAR ALAM ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Shadam Farasat and Ms. Mahima Gupta,
Advocates.
VERSUS
JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. M. Atyab Siddiqui, Ms. Tibah Siddiqui
and Mr. Rohit Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The history of this case shows that petitioner is consistently over
anxious to come to the Court even before proceedings achieve finality. This I am
saying so because there is yet no report of the Disciplinary Authority holding the
petitioner guilty or imposing any penalty upon the petitioner. It is trite that the
Enquiry Officer's report may or may not be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority
i.e the petitioner can be exonerated or the petitioner can be held to be guilty.
Today, there is no finality to the proceedings against the petitioner in that there is
WPC 873/2013 Page 1 of 5
as yet no order of the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges as proved against
the petitioner.
2. The issue pertains to the petitioner/charged officer fraudulently
manipulating of holding of an "examination" of paper MP 1.2 (Government and
Politics in West Asia) of the first semester of the M.Phil course of the Centre for
West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia with regard to one Ms. Versha Tomar.
There is also a charge against the petitioner of wrongly seeking to influence and
pressurize the faculty members of the Centre for West Asian Studies with respect
to the case of Ms. Versha Tomar.
3. The present petitioner after issuing of the charge sheet had earlier
filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5254/2012 seeking to challenge Statute 37
of Jamia Milia Islamia under the caption (Removal of Teachers). It was urged by
the petitioner that the Statute in question empowers Jamia Milia Islamia to remove a
teacher etc on the grounds of misconduct, which would mean, when even, if a
misconduct is minor the only penalty envisaged would be that of removal from removal
from service irrespective of the type of infraction. This challenge was dismissed by a
Division Bench of this Court on 3.9.2012. It may be noted that the Division Bench, after
dismissing the challenge laid to Statute 37 of Jamia Milia Islamia Act, 1988, listed the
matter before the learned Single Judge on 10.9.2012. The writ petition was
WPC 873/2013 Page 2 of 5
disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 10.9.2012 by making the following
observations in paras 5 and 6 of the order dated 10.9.2012, which read as under:-
"5. I note, it is stated in the petition that the orders of
initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has
been obtained without any application of mind by the E.C. In the
absence of relevant documents before the EC, it cannot be said that
EC applied its mind in giving concurrence to the decision of the
respondent to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner.
6. I here make it clear that this Court has not given any opinion on
this issue and the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this issue at
the appropriate state if he is aggrieved by the decision of the
competent authority."
4. The Enquiry Officer Sh. B.L.Garg (Additional District & Session
Judge (Retd.) thereafter commenced the proceedings with respect to the charge
sheet and has now given his report dated 12.1.2013. The Enquiry Officer has held
the petitioner guilty of both the charges.
5. The petitioner, at this stage, has rushed to the Court claiming that the
Enquiry Officer ought to have allowed the petitioner to lead expert evidence in the
form of hand writing expert's report.
6. Counsel for the respondent no.1/University has argued before me that
the petitioner is guilty of concealment of Memorandum dated 24.1.2013, which has
been issued by the University to the petitioner after the report was given by the
Enquiry Officer, and in which Memorandum the petitioner has been given an
WPC 873/2013 Page 3 of 5
opportunity to make representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. I
may only state that in the entire writ petition record this communication dated
24.1.2013 of asking the petitioner to show cause against the findings of Enquiry
Officer is not filed.
7. I really have failed to understand the need of the petitioner to
repeatedly rush to this Court at a premature stage. As already observed above, the
report of the Enquiry Officer may or may not be accepted by the Disciplinary
Authority. It is only the order of the Disciplinary Authority which will be binding
against the University or the petitioner i.e the finality will only be reached at the
stage if the Disciplinary Authority accepts the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is
perfectly possible that the Disciplinary Authority may not accept the report of the
Enquiry Officer. Also, all arguments which are urged before me or averred in the
writ petition, are in fact arguments which are to be addressed before the
Disciplinary Authority, and not to this Court. It cannot be disputed that all the
grounds which are urged in the writ petition would be available to the petitioner i.e
before the Disciplinary Authority, before the Disciplinary Authority agrees or
does not agree to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer.
8. In my opinion, para 6 of the order of the learned Single Judge dated
10.9.2012 cannot come to the aid of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to come
WPC 873/2013 Page 4 of 5
to this Court at a stage where yet there is no finality as to the petitioner being guilty
or not and as to any penalty being imposed upon the petitioner or not or as to any
other disciplinary action being taken against the petitioner or not.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, including the aspect of there yet not
being finality to the report of the Enquiry Officer because there is no Disciplinary
Authority's order, concealment of the petitioner of the Memorandum dated
24.1.2013, and finally the fact that all the arguments which are sought to be urged
before me are in fact arguments to be urged before the Disciplinary Authority, the
writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 13, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
