Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahi Pal Sharma vs Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra ... on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047848
2024:PHHC:047848
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
934
CWP-4603-2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:05.04.2024
Mahi Pal Sharma
......Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
*****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned orders at Annexures P-8 dated
06.11.1998, P-12 dated 27.03.2008 as also P-14 dated 07.12.2010 passed
by the appellant authority i.e. Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the order of punishment was passed by the Vice Chancellor vide
Annexure P-8. He further submitted that appeal vide Annexure P-14 has
been decided in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in CWP
No.19759-2009 decided on 21.12.2009 vide Annexure P-17. The
aforesaid Appellate Authority which was the Executive Council was
chaired by the Vice Chancellor himself. Learned counsel for the
petitioner referred to an application filed by the petitioner wherein he
sought information through RTI wherein it was so informed to the
petitioner vide Annexure P-18 that the meeting dated 09.11.2010 of the
Executive Council of the University whereby the appeal of the petitioner
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047848
CWP-4603-2012 -2- 2024:PHHC:047848
was considered, was chaired by the Vice Chancellor and the punishing
authority was also the Vice Chancellor against whom the appeal was filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is in violation
of the principles of natural justice i.e.doctrine of bias. He also referred to
two judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexures P-19
and P-20 which also pertain to the same university i.e. Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra. He further submitted that appellate order was
vitiated being violative of doctrine of bias, since the Vice Chancellor
could not have presided over the meeting and could not have become a
member of the Executive Council.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
University could not dispute the aforesaid factual position.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated
07.12.2010 (Annexure P-14) which is the order passed by the appellate
authority i.e. Executive Council of the Kurukshetra University, is hereby
set aside. Respondent-University is hereby directed to take a decision
afresh on the appeal filed by the petitioner against his punishment order
which will be taken by the Executive Council in which the Vice
Chancellor is not a member for the purpose of consideration of the appeal
of the petitioner. Fresh decision will be taken within a period of three
months from today after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner.
Petition stands partly allowed.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
05.04.2024
shweta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
