Harjeet Singh Raina vs University Of Jammu And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 780 j&K

                                                                      Sr. No. 02
        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
                           (Through Virtual Mode Srinagar)

                                               WP(C) No. 2040/2020
                                               CM No. 2135/2021
                                               CM Nos. 8030/2020 & 8031/2020

Harjeet Singh Raina                                  .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


                       Through: Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate

                 Vs


University of Jammu and another                                 ..... Respondent(s)

                      Through:    Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for R-1.
                                  Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate for R-2.


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
                                  JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner who claims to be "A" Class Government Contractor has been

awarded different contracts by the respondent-University for an amount of

Rs.74 lacs. The petitioner submits that he is required to supervise the works

which are required to be completed in pursuance to the contracts allotted to

him by the university. It appears that the complaint was lodged by one Dr.

Seema Nargotra, Professor in the university, and the complaint screening

committee was constituted which recorded its findings and presented the

same to the Vice Chancellor of the University and the complaint was closed

vide dated 03.03.2015. It is also stated in the petition that an FIR was also

lodged against him by the said professor and the FIR was challenged under

561 Cr.P.C. and the investigation in the case was stayed by this Court. The

professor again filed the complaint against the petitioner herein and the fact

finding committee reported vide dated 08.12.2020 that the charges registered

against the petitioner by the complainant is a case of the personal discord

that involves financial matter. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of

communication/order No. Adm./TW/20/2880/84 dated 25.11.2020,

addressed to the superintendent of the engineering wing of the University by

the Registrar, the entry of the petitioner has been restricted in the campus

which is not legal order as the same has been passed without hearing him.

The further case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that infact the said

professor owes money to him which was borrowed by her earlier and not

paid till date. The complaints filed by the said professor are only the result of

non-payment of the money which the complainant owes to him.

2. The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents wherein the

respondents have supported the order impugned/communication impugned

in the writ petition on the ground that the complaints stood filed by Dr.

Seema Nargotra and Arti Sharma against the petitioner even before the

National Commission for Women. It is also submitted that the meeting was

held between the National Commission for Women and the officials of the

University and consequently the order impugned case to be passed by the

respondents.

3. Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate, has also been heard in the matter who had

filed an application on behalf of Dr. Seema Nargotra, whereby the applicant

had sought impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. The

objections to the application were filed by the petitioner seeking dismissal of

the application on the ground that the application is not maintainable in the

present petition as the applicant is not necessary or proper party and no relief

has been claimed against her.

4. At the outset it may be mentioned that court is not concerned with the factual

aspects of the matter which pertain to the allegation of the petitioner

regarding the financial transaction that has taken place between the petitioner

and Dr. Seema Nargotra. The court is only required to deal with the order

impugned, passed by the respondent, in facts and circumstances of the case.

The plea taken in the writ petition is that the Dr. Seema Nargotra has time

and again filed complaints against the petitioner and even filed FIR against

him wherein investigation has been stayed by this court. The complaints

filed have not found favour with the fact finding committees constituted by

the university itself and therefore there was no reason to pass order

impugned by the University whereby he has not been allowed to enter the

premises and supervise the works allotted to him. It is not denied by the

respondents in their objections about the earlier complaints filed by Dr.

Seema Nargotra and their outcome as mentioned in the writ petition. The

ground taken for passing the impugned order/communication as per the

objections is that the order is passed in consequence to the meeting held

between the National Commission for Women and the official of the

university. It is not mentioned that the petitioner was also part of

meeting/negotiation that took place between the Commission and University

officials. The order impugned may not visit the petitioner with serious

consequences yet he could be heard in the matter before passing the order as

he is required to execute the contract awarded by the university. It is also

pertinent to mention that the petition has been awarded contracts in the year

2020-21 just prior to passing of the impugned order which shows that the

university had otherwise no complaint qua the visiting of the petitioner to the

campus. It is still the responsibility of the petitioner to supervise and execute

the contract allotted to him by the respondents though the impugned order

states that the work allotted to the petitioner be supervised by the Engineer

concerned in the university works department through his work force till

finding of the committee is received.

5. The argument of Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate appearing for the university

and Mr. Himanshu Beotra for the professor that the petitioner whose conduct

is under scrutiny cannot be allowed to enter the university campus as the

same will be source of harassment for the professor and the petitioner may

not desist from contacting her against her will in the campus. The court is of

the view that the apprehension of the counsels of the university and the

professor Dr. Seema Nargortra can be taken care of by restricting the

movement of the petitioner in the university campus in such a manner that

the petitioner visits the university to only supervise the ongoing works if still

not completed under the supervision of some university official. The

Women Commission has otherwise also suggested measures for the security

of the professor as per the document placed on the file by the respondents.

The works allotted to the petitioner may be otherwise nearing completion as

the order impugned allowed the works to be completed under the supervision

of the engineer of the university during the pendency of the report to be

submitted by the committee. The order impugned requires to be revisited by

the respondent-University as the petitioner was required to be heard before

passing the same but the same was not done. The order therefore requires to

be set-aside for the aforesaid reason.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to take fresh call on

the entry of the petitioner in the university keeping in view the fact that the

contract, awarded by the university in favour of the petitioner, is required to

be completed. The respondents will take into consideration the grievance of

the complainant while passing fresh direction if still required.

7. It is made clear that the court shall not deem to have expressed or given any

finding on the averments contained in the petition qua the financial

transaction between the petitioner and the professor as stated in the petition

or the veracity of the complaints of the complainant-professor.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge

Jammu 13.05.2022 Shammi Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yess