Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2024

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 31ST OF MAY, 2024
W.P. No.29611 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-

DR. RANJAN KUMAR PRADHAN S/O SHRI ARAKSHIT
PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O B/3,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, DR. HARI SINGH GOUR
UNIVERSITY, SAGAR (MP)
OCCUPATION - REGISTRAR, DR. HARI SINGH GOUR
VISHWAVIDYALAYA
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
PRAJAS BHATTI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR.
RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI,
2. VICE CHANCELLOR, DR. HARI SINGH GOUR
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, SAGAR - 470003
3. DR. HARI SINGH GOUR VISHWAVIDYALAYA,
THROUGH REGISTRAR, SAGAR -470003
4. DR. SATYA PRAKASH UPADHYAY, JOINT
REGISTRAR, DR. HARI SINGH GOUR
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, SAGAR - 470003
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHOBHA MENON - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAHUL
CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 08.04.2024
Pronounced on : 31.05.2024
................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
2

for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:

ORDER

Since the pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is claiming following relief:

(i) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing show cause notice dated 13-11-2023 (Annexure-P/18) as well as quashing order dated 13-11-2023 (Annexure-P/15) through which, petitioner has been directed not to discharge duties as Registrar. Further, issue an appropriate writ quashing order dated 13.11.2023 (Annexure-P/16) through which, Respondent No.4 has been given the charge of Registrar in the place of the petitioner and quashing consequential order dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure-P/23) through which, the Respondent No.4 has directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of the post of Registrar.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ declaring that the show cause notice dated 13.11.2023 (Annexure-P/18) is bad in law, as it is in nature of final order which has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ declaring that the appointment of the petitioner (Annexure-P/7) on the post of Registrar is just and proper and the petitioner should be permitted to continue to discharge duties on the aforesaid post of Registrar of Respondent University.

"7(3A) Issue an appropriate writ declaring order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure-P/24) as illegal and permit the petitioner to discharge the duties as Registrar of the Respondent University, along with consequential benefits.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and appropriate in context of this case.

(v) Costs of the petition may be provided.

3. Initially the petition was filed challenging the show cause notice issued to the petitioner but later on by order dated 01.12.2023

(Annexure-P/24), the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner was recalled and consequently he was removed from the post of Registrar of Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya and as such, the petitioner by amending the petition is challenging the order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure-P/24).

4. The facts of the case adumbrated in nutshell are;

(4.1) That the petitioner was initially appointed in Planning Commission/NITI Aayog (hereinafter referred to as 'NITI Aayog') on the post of Research Officer on 07.03.2001, and thereafter on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 20.11.2006 as Senior Research Officer, and was regularized on the same post vide order dated 19.11.2007 by NITI Aayog.

(4.2) The petitioner had discharged his duties as Senior Research Officer from 20.11.2006 to 01.11.2019. As per the petitioner, during intervening period i.e. 2013-2019 in NITI Aayog, he had also discharged duties as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on ad hoc basis and was continued in the aforesaid employment, and thereafter discharged duties as Registrar at Debt Recovery Tribunal Guwahati (for brevity 'DRT Guwahati') from 02.11.2019 to 14.03.2022.

(4.3) The respondent University advertised the post of Registrar and the petitioner having requisite qualifying service for the said post as he worked for more than 23 years and having sufficient research experience which he has mentioned in his application form dated 15.03.2022, submitted his candidature before the respondent University.

(4.4) As per the details given in the petition, the petitioner worked

in the nationally reputed institutes like Ravenshaw University at Cuttak (1990-1995), Sir Padampat Research Centre of JK Synthetics at Kota (1995-1998), High Energy Materials Research Laboratory at Pune (1999-2000) and Planning Commission/NITI Aayog at New Delhi (2001-2003). During that period, according to the petitioner, he has carried out research in diverse areas like polymer materials, polymer explosives, polymer & Fibre in textiles, environmental sciences, planning in industry & energy, policy matters pertaining to various industry sectors, technoeconomics analysis of projects and many more areas of macroeconomics and financial policy etc. He was continued with his research work during his posting on deputation at DRT Guwahati (2019-2022) and he even delivered lectures on water pollution in reputed international webinar where he was invited. (4.5) As per the petitioner, he has more than 25 years' work experience encompassing diverse fields of research, administration and judicial matter, including more than 15 years of government service in research and administration areas in Pay Level 11 and above (2006-2022).

(4.6) The respondent University had issued a recruitment notice for the post of non-teaching group A position, Registrar, wherein, it was specified that the qualification for the said post would be master's degree and requisite period of service. The options were also given and as per the same, the applicant should either have 15 years of experience as Assistant Professor in Level 11 or 8 years of service in Academic Level 12 or comparable experience in a research establishment or 15 years

administrative experience of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar. Notice of recruitment is also part of the petition as Annexure-P/3.

(4.7) The petitioner had submitted his application online providing details of his prior services to the respondent University. The petitioner, who was a regular employee of NITI Aayog, at the relevant point of time was holding the post of Senior Research Officer and had accordingly stated to be a regular employee. The petitioner had also provided the documents of his additional experience. The petitioner had specified that he worked from 2006 to 2022 on Pay Level 11 and satisfied essential educational qualification as well as experience criteria which was duly supported by the documents and the petitioner had not conveyed any false information or furnished any fabricated document to support his claim. The documents submitted by the petitioner were examined by the Screening/Selection Committee, in which respondent No.4 was also shortlisted for the purpose of interview and as such, he had conflict of interest with the petitioner ever since the recruitment for the post of 'Registrar' commenced. (4.8) The petitioner was scrutinized by the Selection Committee constituted by the respondent University and recommendation was made on 06.11.2022 observing that the submission of 'NOC' from the employer along with vigilance clarification is required and finally the petitioner was found to be the selected candidate for the post of Registrar.

(4.9) In pursuance to the aforesaid decision of Executive Council, the petitioner was issued appointment order dated 29.12.2022.

The report of Selection Committee and decision of Executive Council are also part of record.

(4.10) The DRT Guwahati, relieved the petitioner vide order dated 29.12.2022. The NITI Aayog vide notification dated 07.03.2023, retired the petitioner voluntarily from the government service under Rule 43(1) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.

(4.11) As per the petitioner, since the process of voluntary retirement from NITI Aayog was taking time due to administrative reason, therefore, he sought extension of time from the respondent University for permitting him to join immediately after permission so granted by the concerning authority and the period of joining was extended by the respondent University.

(4.12) Respondent No.4 under the garb of service verification, collected information from NITI Aayog as well as DRT, Guwahati about the petitioner mentioning that the petitioner in his application for getting appointment on the post of Registrar has claimed experience to have worked on the post of Deputy Advisor on regular basis. The NITI Aayog clarified that the petitioner had never held the post of Deputy Advisor on regular basis. Letters of NITI Aayog are also part of the record.

(4.13) It is mentioned in the petition that respondent No.4 collected information also from the DRT, Guwahati, and therefore, petitioner has given a notice to respondent No.4 as he was defaming him by publicizing false rumors about his

experience.

(4.14) Despite selecting the petitioner by Scrutiny/Selection Committee as well as by the Executive Council of respondent University, only on the basis of material collected by respondent No.4, they issued an order that the petitioner would not be permitted to discharge duties of the office of Registrar and charge of that post was given to respondent No.4.

(4.15) As per the petitioner, it was illegal as there is no provision available for issuing direction refraining the petitioner from discharging the duties as Registrar. It is also mentioned in the petition that even before receiving the show cause notice by the petitioner, the respondent University acted with predetermined mind and issued a press note declaring that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification and the documents submitted by him upon verification were found to be false and as such, it was decided that the petitioner would not be continued as Registrar.

(4.16) The respondent University just to fulfill the requirement of principles of natural justice, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner mentioning therein that as per verification of his service from NITI Aayog, it is found that he does not fulfill the requisite period of qualifying service, but he has furnished false information in order to secure appointment on the post of Registrar. It is also alleged that the petitioner himself has certified that he had worked as permanent Deputy Advisor and also concealed the fact that he had retired voluntarily from the post of Senior Research Officer on 07.03.2023, and

therefore, on these premises, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him as to why his services should not be terminated. The said show cause notice dated 13.11.2023 is part of the petition.

(4.17) The petitioner submitted interim reply to the said show cause notice and also final reply. The petitioner has specifically pointed out that he has requisite qualification for the purpose of appointment on the post of Registrar. As per the petitioner, his application was duly examined by the Scrutiny/Selection Committee and nothing false was found. Further, whatever requisite qualification was required, the petitioner fulfilled the same and as such, all parameters of the said recruitment were fulfilled by him. Therefore, only on the basis that he did not work on regular basis as Deputy Advisor, it cannot be said that he has not worked on the said post.

(4.18) According to the petitioner, the material supplied by respondent No.4 cannot be considered to be true because it is only on the basis of information sought by him and since respondent No.4 was an interested party, therefore, the material collected by him was with a predetermined objective. As per the petitioner, the Scrutiny/Selection Committee as well as the Executive Council has to consider the reply of the petitioner and the report submitted by respondent No.4 could not have been given weightage as the same cannot override the satisfaction already recorded by the appointing authority. (4.19) It is stated in the petition that the respondent University being an agency and instrumentality of the State, cannot adopt interpretation of the rules solely with an intent of

disqualifying the petitioner. As per the petitioner, respondent No.4 acting in a hurried manner directed him to vacate the office, hand over the official documents which were in his possession and according to the petitioner, he acted malafidely.

(4.20) The petitioner, therefore, is challenging the action of the respondent University saying that they acted in highhanded and capricious manner as on one hand they issued a show cause notice asking his explanation as to how he fulfills the requisite qualification as per the demand made by the respondent University and on the other hand, they issued a press note observing that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualification of appointment. It is stated by the petitioner that without any preliminary enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, he has been directed not to perform duties as Registrar and also not permitted to enter into the office premises, ergo, the impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has tried to establish that whatever qualification was asked for by the respondent University for the post of Registrar, he fulfilled the same and he has furnished requisite documents to substantiate that he is having requisite qualifications. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be removed from service in such a manner, in which it has been done because neither any opportunity of hearing nor any regular departmental enquiry was conducted and as such, according to the petitioner, since the statutory provision was not followed, therefore, the action of respondent University is unreasonable, unjust

and unfair.

6. Respondents have filed their reply taking a stand therein that in the advertisement i.e. Annexure-P/3, qualification for the post of Registrar was mentioned and as per the petitioner, he had requisite qualification i.e. "15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or equivalent post thereto". As per the respondents, experience on the post of Deputy Registrar or equivalent post would clearly mean that the experience would be of regular service, but if services rendered are on ad hoc basis, the same cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining the eligibility of candidate.

As per the respondents, the petitioner has conveyed false information about his experience just to secure appointment saying that he had performed duties as Deputy Advisor on regular basis, but it was purely on ad hoc basis. The services which the petitioner had rendered on regular basis were, as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level-12) in NITI Aayog/Planning Commission from 11.02.2013 to 01.11.2019 (6 years & 8 months), as a Senior Research Officer Regular (Pay Level-11) in NITI Aayog/ Planning Commission from 21.11.2006 to 10.02.2013 (6 years & 2 months), as a Research Officer (Pay Level-10) in NITI Aayog/ Planning Commission from 07.03.2001 to 20.11.2006 (5 years & 8 months) and as Registrar (Pay Level-12) in Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati from 02.11.2019 to 14.03.2022 (2 years & 4 months) on regular basis. The respondents have also submitted that the declaration made by the petitioner on his online application form is as under:-

"I Ranjan Kumar Pradhan hereby declare that all statements and entries made in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. In the event of any information being found false

or incorrect or ineligibility being detected in future at any stage, my candidature/ appointment may be cancelled by the University."

As per the respondents, the declaration made by the petitioner clearly reveals that if any information even after issuing the order of appointment is found false in the application form which renders him ineligible for the post of Registrar, the decision to cancel the appointment order can be resorted to by the University and as such, the decision has been taken by the respondent University to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. As such, the respondents have taken a stand that after verification since it was found that the petitioner has given false information for getting appointment, therefore, the impugned order has been issued, which cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.

7. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner denying the facts mentioned in the return and it is stated that while taking a decision by the respondent University, they have not followed the principles of natural justice. It is also stated that the petitioner has also filed the documents issued by the NITI Aayog showing that the material collected by respondent No.4 against the petitioner are false.

8. The additional return has also been filed by respondent No.2 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, in which, they have reiterated the facts mentioned in their reply and stuck with the stand as they have taken in their reply saying that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification for the post of Registrar and he has conveyed incorrect information and as such, the order of termination is proper.

9. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, the core question emerges for adjudication is "whether the petitioner possessed the requisite

qualification to be appointed on the post of Registrar or he has conveyed any false information about his qualification requisite for the post of Registrar as advertised by the respondent university" OR "the decision taken by the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry can be said to be proper".

10. To answer the question framed above, it is apt to mention the requisite qualification shown in the advertisement for the post of Registrar, which was as under:-

Non-Teaching Group A Posts

Post Post Registrar - 01 (UR) Code

NT/01 Pay Scale Level 14 - Rs.144200-218200

Age Limit Preferably below 57 years

Qualification Essential:

and i. Master's Degree with at least 55% of the Experience marks or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed.

ii. At least Fifteen year's of experience as Assistant Professor in the Academic Level 11 and above or with Eight years' of service in the Academic Level 12 and above including as Associate Professor along with experience in educational administration, OR Comparable experience in a research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education, OR Fifteen years of administrative experience, of which Eight years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post.

Method of Direct/Deputation for a term of Five years or till

Recruitment attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier.

(Eligible for reappointment after observance of due selection process)

11. The petitioner has claimed that he possessed the required qualification shown above in the advertisement and he supplied all the requisite documents. The Selection Committee after scrutinizing those documents and also being satisfied about the requisite qualifications, made recommendation in his favour on 06.11.2022.

12. As per the stand taken by the respondents in their return, at least 15 years of experience as an Assistant Professor in Academic Level 11 and above or with 8 years of service in Academic Level 12 and above, including as an Associate Professor along with experience in educational administration or comparable experience in a research establishment and/ or other institutions of higher education or 15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post. It is alleged that the petitioner does not have experience of 15 years in Academic Pay Level 11 i.e. (AGP Rs.7000/- in 6th CPC) or 8 years in Academic Pay Level 12 i.e. (AGP Rs.8000/- in 6th CPC) neither in any university/college nor in any other research institute of higher education, hence his candidature is unfit for being considered under these (b) (c) & (d) categories referred to above or 8 years as a Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post i.e. (Pay Level 12 GP Rs.7600/- in 6th CPC). It is also alleged that the petitioner in his application form has claimed experience in Pay Level 12 from 11.02.2013 to 01.11.2019 i.e. 6 Years & 8 months and again from 02.11.2019 to 14.03.2022 i.e. 2 years & 4 months and as such, the total experience in Pay Level 12 as claimed by him is 9 years. This claim was

supported with a declaration in his application form dated 14.03.2022. The declaration is a part of Clause 9 of the advertisement dated 02.02.2022, which reads as under:-

"It shall be the responsibility of the candidate to ascertain his/her own eligibility for the post for which he/she is applying in accordance with the prescribed qualifications, experiences, etc., and submit his application duly filled-in, along with the desired information and documents as per the advertisement. Suppression of factual information, supply of fake documents, providing false or misleading information or canvassing in any manner on the part of the candidates shall lead to his disqualification. In case, it is detected at any point of time in future, even after appointment, that the candidate was not eligible, his appointment shall be liable to be terminated forthwith as per this clause."

13. However, it is alleged that the document dated 11.11.2021 issued by under Secretary of Government of India was enclosed by the petitioner with his application form indicating that Dr. R.K. Pradhan who is a permanent employee of NITI Aayog since 07.03.2002 and presently working as Registrar (Pay Level 12) at Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati on deputation since 02.11.2019, has worked as Deputy Advisor (Pay Level 12) on ad hoc basis during 2013-2019, which is as under:-

Period

From To

11.02.2013 10.02.2014

26.02.2014 26.02.2016 (F/N)

25.03.2015 24.03.2016

18.12.2017 01.11.2019 (F/N)

The aforesaid ad hoc services according to the respondents

reckons to 4 years, 10 months & 14 days whereas the petitioner's claim is 6 years and 8 months. The total service in Pay Level 12, including his services of NITI Aayog and DRT Guwahati 2 years & 4 months (on deputation) reckons to 7 years and 3 months, which clearly falls short of 9 months.

14. As per the respondents, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to submit the documents in support of his claim that he has 8 years' experience in Pay Level 12, but he failed to do so and as such, his appointment was cancelled and he has been removed from the post of Registrar on genuine grounds.

15. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has claimed that in a masters decree, the petitioner has secured 61.4 marks. Besides that, he has also possessed MBA degree with 64% marks and also has a Ph.D. degree. In addition thereto, the petitioner is also having rich experience in research work, as many of his research papers have been published in the reputed National as well as International Journals. He has submitted that as per the prescribed qualification contemplated in the advertisement i.e. Annexure-P/3, it is clear that the petitioner had all those qualifications. As far as the research experience is concerned, the petitioner has rich experience in diverse fields and experience of 30 years in research work, including research work in Pay Level 11 and above. Along with the rejoinder, Shri Sharma has attached a chart i.e. Annexure-RJ/1 showing the petitioner's research experience.

Shri Sharma has further submitted that the allegation with regard to supplying false information to secure appointment is baseless. According to him, whatever documents available with the petitioner so

as to substantiate his qualification were placed before the Selection Committee and after scrutinizing them, the petitioner was recommended to be selected for the post of Registrar. No document was produced by him can be said to be false and fabricated. However, he has submitted that merely because the petitioner has submitted his candidature online and some particulars could not be filled-up completely due to shortcoming and laches in the online portal and it can be considered to be a technical error.

16. As per the stand taken by Shri Sharma, the experience certificate was enclosed in pursuance to the advertisement and the petitioner has never claimed that he has ever served at Pay Lavel 12 in NITI Aayog on regular basis from 11.02.2013 to 01.11.2019. The certificate dated 11.11.2021 issued by NITI Aayog was submitted by the petitioner along with his application form dated 15.03.2022, in which, it was clearly mentioned that his promotion to the post of Deputy Advisor during 2013-2019 was an intermittent arrangement and that was on "ad hoc"

basis. All throughout the entire period of service, the job of the petitioner was permanent in nature and thus was under the character of regular employment, but the promotion was on ad hoc basis.

17. As per the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record vis-a-vis the requisite qualification as shown in Annexure-P/3, it is clear that the petitioner is claiming that he has requisite qualification because he submitted all the required documents and the Selection Committee after scrutinizing those documents shortlisted the petitioner for interview and after scrutiny of the documents furnished by the petitioner subsequent to his online application form within the prescribed period of 10 days, the Selection

Committee made recommendation in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted 'NOC' from his previous employer and also taking VRS, found him selected in the respondent University. Since the VRS was accepted, therefore, he was no more in the services of his previous employer.

18. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a detailed reply to the said show cause notice was also submitted by the petitioner i.e. Annexure-P/20 dated 16.11.2023 explaining therein that there is no deficiency in the qualification or information given by the petitioner. The respondent University has passed the final order i.e. Annexure-P/24 dated 01.12.2023, but did not take into account the certificate of experience submitted by the petitioner issued by his previous employer i.e. NITI Aayog dated 11.11.2021 and the said certificate clearly reveals that the petitioner was working as permanent employee in NITI Aayog since 07.03.2001, but his promotion as Deputy Advisor on Pay Level 12 was on ad hoc basis during 2013-2019.

19. Shri Sharma has submitted that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are applicable to the employees of the respondent University as per their ordinance-41 and the stand has been taken by the petitioner in his rejoinder stating therein that the petitioner before passing the order of removal can be removed only by conducting a regular departmental enquiry as per the procedure prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Ordinance-41 of the respondent University i.e. Dr. Harisingh Gour University, Sagar (M.P.), reads as under:-

"ORDINANCE-41 CODE OF CONDUCT OF EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIVERSITY (Under Section 6(1)(xxi) of the Central Universities Act, 2009)

All employees (teaching and non-teaching) of the University shall be governed by the CCS (Conduct) and CCS (CCA) Rules

of the Government of India issued from time to time."

20. Although, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner was not removed under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but has been removed as per enabling Clauses 9 & 10 of the advertisement dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure-P/7). The respondents have submitted that in the advertisement there was a specific clause i.e. Clause-9 and as per Clause-5 of the order of appointment, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Registrar. Clause-5 of the appointment order, reads as under:-

"5. His appointment is subject to verification of documents submitted by him in support of his qualifications, experience, age, etc. And in future, if it is detected that such documents are not genuine, the Vishwavidyalaya shall take appropriate action as per rules."

21. To reinforce his submissions, Shri Manoj Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (1986) 3 SCC 7 (Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand Jha), (1990) 2 SCC 715 (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), ILR (2001) MP 1144 (Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and others) and 2024 SCC OnLine SC 541 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghuradauri and Others).

22. At the same time, to bolster her submissions, Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in (2019) 3 SCC 422 (Ritu Bhatia Vs. Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution and others) and (2023) 7 SCC 536 (Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and others).

23. In view of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that so far as the required qualification as per the advertisement i.e. Annexure-P/3 and the determination whether the petitioner had the said qualification or not are concerned, prima facie in view of the documents submitted by the petitioner along with his application form and the appointment order issued in his favour, the Selection Committee failed to point out any shortcoming in the same which was also not informed to the petitioner for almost one and a half years and further the show cause notice issued to him and issuing press note Annexure-P/17 on the same day saying that the documents submitted by the petitioner were found false, therefore, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Registrar, it appears that the decision had already been taken even without considering the reply of the petitioner and as such, from the order of removal i.e. Annexure-P/24 itself it is clear that it was stigmatic. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents suffers from violation of principles of natural justice because there was no suppression on the part of the petitioner and it is also not clear prima facie that the petitioner has conveyed any false information or not. Under such circumstances, the order of termination made by the respondents alleging that the petitioner obtained appointment by giving false information and on the basis of false documents, is purely stigmatic in nature.

24. The Supreme Court in case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) has observed as under:-

"18. On a bare perusal of the termination letter dated 19th May, 2022, it becomes apparent that the decision to terminate the services of the appellant from the post of Registrar was not preceded by an opportunity to show cause

or any sort of disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry as referred to in the termination letter was in relation to the qualifications of the appellant for being appointed on the post of Registrar. The letter further indicates that the selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the Board of Governors in its 26th meeting dated 16th June, 2018. The said observation in the letter dated 19th May, 2022 is totally erroneous and contradicted by the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018. (reproduced supra)

19. In this background, we are of the firm view that the termination of the services of the appellant without holding disciplinary enquiry was totally unjustified and dehors the requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the hypertechnical ground that the minutes of 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018 had not been placed on record."

25. In the said case, the termination of the petitioner namely Sandeep Kumar from the post of Registrar was in question before the High Court and that was on the ground that the appellant did not place on record the minutes of 26th meeting of the Board of Governor dated 16th June, 2018 and it was referred in the termination letter dated 19 th May, 2022 and the petition was dismissed on the ground that non-disclosure tantamount to suppression of material facts. However, the Supreme Court has finally observed that the termination was made without any inquiry, show cause or any sort of disciplinary proceeding and held that the termination is illegal.

26. Likewise in a case of Rahul Tripathi (supra), the Court has observed that even in a contract appointment if order of termination is punitive in nature, then the said order cannot be passed without conducting a proper enquiry. In the said case, giving reference of several judgment of the Supreme Court saying that if the order of termination is not simplicitor, but it is stigmatic, the same cannot be issued without conducting a regular departmental enquiry.

27. I am also of the opinion that in the present case since allegation with regard to supplying incorrect information or deficit in the requisite qualification is not so clear and that can be inferred at a glance. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity and the authority should have consider the explanation given by the petitioner and the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his qualification should have also been taken note of and as such, proper enquiry should have been conducted, but without doing so, the respondents took the decision of terminating the services of the petitioner.

28. The judgment on which Smt. Menon has placed reliance i.e. Ritu Bhatia (supra), the qualification for the post of Company Secretary was not found in the credit of the petitioner (Ritu Bhatia) appointed on the post of Company Secretary as she did not have the experience as Company Secretary. This condition was very specific and unambiguous and since the experience on the post of Company Secretary was not found in the credit of petitioner, therefore, her appointment was cancelled due to short of eligibility criteria. But here in this case, the situation is not so. The qualification as has been shown in Annexure-P/3 and the qualification possessed by the petitioner cannot be determined at a glance.

29. Likewise in a case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), it was a case of suppression of relevant information or submission of false information in verification form in respect of criminal prosecution, but that is not the situation here. All the documents relating to requisite qualification have been placed before the Selection Committee by the petitioner and after scrutinizing the same, the Selection Committee found the present petitioner suitable having all requisite qualification

and made recommendation for his appointment on the post of Registar and thereafter he was appointed, but only after one and a half years that too on the basis of information collected by respondent No.4 against whom the petitioner has alleged malafide, the action has been taken. The conduct of the respondents issuing show cause notice and giving press note with a conclusion that the petitioner was removed from the post of Registrar on the same day that too on the basis of incorrect information supplied by him, indicates that they acted arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice.

30. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure-P/24) suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as before terminating the services of the petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted. Ergo, the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure-P/24) deserves to be and accordingly, it is set aside.

31. The petitioner should be reinstated in service with immediate effect with all consequential benefits even the salary and allowances for the period when he remained out from service. Although, liberty is with the respondents if they want to take action against the petitioner, they can do so according to the procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for conducting a regular departmental enquiry.

32. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost.

33. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-

ANIL CHOUDHARY 2024.06.01 12:16:55 +05'30'