National Institute Of Technology vs Mr. Chandra Mohan Andugula
2022 Latest Caselaw 497 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                   WRIT APPEAL No.110 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 01.02.2021, passed in W.P.No.13546 of 2020 by the

learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1/

writ petitioner came up before the learned Single Judge

being aggrieved by the order passed by the Director,

National Institute of Technology, Warangal (NITW), dated

28/29.01.2019 cancelling his Ph.D., admission and

consequential proceedings, dated 30.07.2019, 18.11.2019

and final Senate proceedings, dated 03.01.2020 confirming

his expulsion from the Ph.D., course.

3. The facts of the case further reveal that the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner joined as a Junior

Research Fellow for DST-SERB Project on 12.12.2017 and

was subsequently enrolled for the Ph.D., programme for

the Academic Year 2017-18 vide Roll No.717168 in the

Department of Chemistry under the supervision and

guidance of the appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad,

Assistant Professor and Supervisor, Department of

Chemistry. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner is a

member of Schedule Caste community and his father is

working as a daily wage labour. The facts further reveal

that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner submitted a

Progress Report in respect of his research work for the

period December, 2017 to April, 2018 to the Dean,

Academic Affairs on 25.04.2018 and the same was

recommended and forwarded by the Dean, Academic

Affairs. The Chairman and Members of the Doctoral

Scrutiny Committee assessed the research work of the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner and he was given 'A' grade

in two subjects and 'B' grade in the other two subjects. The

allegation against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner is

that not being satisfied with the grading awarded to him,

he, on 04.06.2018 at about 1.30 p.m., allegedly used

unparliamentary language against his research guide, the

appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad in the laboratory and

had an emotional outburst on his research guide, i.e., the

appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad at his chamber at about

5.00 p.m., in front of another faculty Member

Dr. B.Srinivas. The appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad,

reported the matter to the authorities and at his request,

the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee (for short, 'DSC')

convened a Meeting on 11.06.2018 and enquired about the

conduct of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and asked

the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to submit his

resignation and to leave the institution.

4. The facts further reveal that on 19.06.2018, the

appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad, addressed a written

complaint to the Director, NITW stating that he was

threatened by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and he

also levelled other allegations against the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner. He requested to remove the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner from his Project and to

cancel the respondent No.1/writ petitioner's Ph.D.,

registration. That the Director, NITW based upon the

complaint made by the appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad,

constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of

Professor K.V.Jayakumar to discuss the issue and take

further course of action. The Committee met on

20.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, considered the matter and

decided to take a lenient view by giving an opportunity to

the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and also decided to

caution the respondent No.1/writ petitioner by imposing

certain conditions to be complied with by the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner with regard to his research work and

conduct.

5. That after a decision was taken by the Committee

under the Chairmanship of Professor K.V.Jayakumar,

again a Committee was constituted under the

Chairmanship of Professor Srilakshmi and the Committee

recommended cancellation of Ph.D., registration of the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner. A show cause notice was

issued on 02.01.2019 stating that the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner has not shown any improvement in

his conduct. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner has

submitted his reply on 07.01.2019 and finally, an order

was passed on 28/29.01.2019 cancelling the Ph.D.,

registration of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The

respondent No.1/writ petitioner thereafter preferred an

Appeal on 05.09.2019 to the Senate and the Appeal was

rejected and communicated to the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner vide order dated 18.11.2019. The respondent

No.1/writ petitioner gave a representation on 29.11.2019,

however, the fact remains that the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner's Ph.D., registration cancellation order dated

28/29.01.2019 was not interfered with by the Authorities.

6. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner contended before

the learned Single Judge that his Ph.D., course started on

12.12.2017 and research work for the period from

December, 2017 to April, 2018 in four subjects was

assessed and grading was given. The respondent No.1/writ

petitioner got grade 'A' in two subjects and grade 'B' in

other two subjects and as an emotional outburst on

account of lower grading, he shouted at the appellant

No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad. A complaint was lodged by the

appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad and in spite of repeated

requests, a copy of the complaint was not furnished to the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner. A meeting of DSC

committee took place on 11.06.2018 and the DSC

committee questioned the respondent No.1/writ petitioner

and recommended the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to

leave the institution by submitting recommendation. On

19.06.2018, a written complaint was made to the Director,

NITW by the appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad, who is the

guide of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, that the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner has threatened him. The

contention of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner is that

on 04.07.2018, a show cause notice was issued and finally

based upon the assurance given by the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner and keeping in view his social

background, the committee recommended that a lenient

view should be taken in the matter and to give one final

opportunity to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner subject

to certain terms and conditions. The Committee

constituted under the chairmanship of Professor

K.V.Jayakumar in its meeting held on 20.08.2018 and

21.08.2018 resolved to give one last chance to the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the recommendations

of Professor, K.V.Jayakumar were approved by the

Director, NITW on 28.08.2018. The respondent No.1/writ

petitioner, thereafter, submitted an undertaking on

04.09.2018 stating that he will work sincerely and honestly

and finally the matter was closed by issuing a letter dated

05.09.2018 giving one more chance to the petitioner and it

was also held that the period from 04.06.2018 to

03.09.2018 shall be treated as period spent under

suspension. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner's

contention is that in spite of the fact that matter was put

to an end, again based upon the same issue, the DSC

Committee Meeting took place on 05.12.2018 and show

cause notice was issued on 02.01.2019 and finally an

order was passed on 28/29.01.2019. The respondent

No.1/writ petitioner's contention is that in the show cause

notice, it was alleged that some lady office staff has made

an oral complaint against the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner about his quarrelsome nature. The respondent

No.1/writ petitioner's contention is that once he was

punished and there was a request by him to change his

Guide, he could not have been terminated in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner before the

learned Single Judge has certainly admitted the factum of

earlier disciplinary action which took place on the basis of

the complaint submitted by the Guide of the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner, dated 19.06.2018. The issuance of

show cause notice, dated 04.07.2018, the explanation

offered by the respondent No.1/petitioner dated

10.07.2018 submitting the apology for the incident, the

Meeting of the DSC Committee which met on 20.08.2018

and 21.08.2018 have been admitted by the appellant

No.1/institution and it has also been admitted that on

05.09.2018, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was

treated to be on probation from 04.09.2018. The

respondents in the writ petition have further stated before

the learned Single Judge that a second show cause notice

was issued on 02.01.2019 directing the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner to show case as to why his registration

should not be cancelled, he did submit a reply and as the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner did not improve his

conduct and there were complaints against him, an order

was passed on 29.01.2019 cancelling the registration of

the Ph.D., registration, against which the appeal was

preferred by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the

same was dismissed. The respondents have stated that as

the matter was relating to disciplinary action of a Ph.D.,

scholar, who has misbehaved with his Guide, they have

rightly passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2019

keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct after grant of

due opportunity to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

Before this Court also, the learned counsel for the

appellants has vehemently argued that the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner has used unparliamentary language

and repeatedly threatened his Professor, he was a

quarrelsome student, who submitted apology several times

and he deserves no leniency. He has further contended

that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that

the issue involved is violation of sub-rule (i) of Rule 1 of the

Student Conduct and Disciplinary Code of the National

Institute of Technology, Warangal. It has also been argued

before this Court that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner

was let off initially with minor punishment by taking a

lenient view as he submitted his undertaking on

04.09.2018, he was permitted to resume his research by

an order dated 05.09.2018. However, he did not show any

improvement in his conduct, and he continued to

misbehave with his supervisor and other research scholars

and therefore, a show cause notice dated 02.01.2019 was

issued and after granting an opportunity of hearing,

registration was cancelled and therefore, the learned Single

Judge has erred in law and facts in allowing the writ

petition preferred by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1/institution

has further argued before this Court that the maintenance

of discipline in an educational institution is of paramount

importance as it affects larger interest of the academic

community and the punishment imposed was

proportionate to the proven misconduct and therefore, the

order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be

set aside.

9. It has been repeatedly argued before this Court that

initially a lenient view was taken in the matter and the

learned Single Judge has arrived at an erroneous

conclusion in holding that the complainant i.e., the

appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad was included in the

Professor K.V.Jayakumar Committee as a Member and he

could not have been included in the Committee to take

action against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. It has

been argued that the Professor K.V.Jayakumar Committee

invited the complaint, he was a special invitee to the

committee and in fact, a lenient view was taken by the

Committee against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and

therefore, the observation made by the learned Single

Judge deserves to be set aside.

10. It has also been argued before this Court that the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner was the Ph.D., scholar in

the Department of Chemistry and the work of Ph.D.,

scholar has to be scrutinized keeping in view the University

Grants Commission Standards and Procedure for awarding

M.Phil., Degree/Regulations 2016 and the projects are

time bound projects. The work of the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner was reviewed and as there was no satisfactory

progress in respect of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner's

work, the Authorities have rightly cancelled his Ph.D.,

admission. It has also been stated that the Regulations,

2016 was followed while passing an order against the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the question of

permitting the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to conclude

his Ph.D., does not arise.

11. While arguing the matter before this Court, heavy

reliance has been placed upon the Judgments delivered in

the case of Satish Nainala v. English and Foreign Languages

University1, Varanasya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya v. Dr.

Raikishore Tripathi2, Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University

v. Craig Macleod3, Mahatma Gandhi University v. Sherin.S4 and

Chhatrapathi Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur v. Sweta Singh5

2016 (4) ALD 37

AIR 1977 SC 615

(2012) 11 SCC 275

Civil Appeal No.5894 of 2010

2017 Law Suit (All) 3161 (Allahabad High Court)

and it has been argued that in the matters of discipline or

administration of the internal affairs of the Universities,

the Courts should be most reluctant to interfere and refuse

to grant any injunction unless prima facie case is made out

for interference. A prayer has been made for setting aside

the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant No.1/Institution

has also argued before this Court that the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner was initially let off with minor

punishment, however as he did not improve his conduct

and as there was a complaint from a lady staff, show cause

notice was rightly issued for the second time on

02.01.2019 and finally the order dated 28/29.01.2019

cancelling the Ph.D., registration has rightly been passed.

The learned counsel has further contended that the

appellant No.1/institution is having 6000 students and if

such misconduct is permitted to continue, the other

students will also, in case they do not get accepted grades,

protest in the matter and institution will not be able to

maintain discipline. A prayer has also been made to set

aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record. The matter is being disposed of at the

admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.

14. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner, who belongs to Schedule Caste

community was serving as a Junior Research Fellow in

DST-SERB Project. He joined the project on 12.12.2017

and was enrolled for Ph.D., programme for the Academic

Year 2017-18 in the Department of Chemistry under the

supervision of the appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad. He

has submitted his Progress Report for the period from

December, 2017 to April, 2018 with the Dean, Academic

Affairs and was awarded 'A' grade in two subjects and 'B'

grade in other two subjects. It is alleged that he has

abused his Guide at about 1.30 p.m., on 04.06.2018 being

dissatisfied with his grading and at the request of his

Guide, a Meeting of DSC Committee took place on

11.06.2018 and on 19.06.2018, the appellant No.4/Dr.

K.Hari Prasad submitted a written complaint to the

Director, NITW stating that after the DSC Committee took

place, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has threatened

him. A show cause notice was issued on 04.07.2018 and

the respondent No.1/writ petitioner submitted his

explanation on 10.07.2018. The explanation was forwarded

by the Registrar to the DSC Committee, whereupon the

DSC Committee made a remark on the document stating

that "the DSC Committee recommended the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner to leave the institution by submitting

resignation letter. It is herewith recommended that a

necessary action be taken. (Signed by the Registrar on

17.07.2018)". The matter was forwarded to the Dean

(Academics), who commented on the note sheet as under:

"Committee may be constituted and decision may be taken

based on the report of the Committee (signed on

18.07.2018)". Thereafter, the Committee was constituted

vide letter dated 03.08.2018 under the Chairmanship of

Professor K.V.Jayakumar with Dean (R & C), Dean (SA),

Registrar, Head of Department of Chemistry and Liaison

Officer of SC/ST as its Members. The Committee met on

20.08.2018 and 21.08.2018 and noted the following

issues:-

1. Shri A. Chandra Mohan was initially appointed as JRF for the DST-SERB Project on 12.12.2017 and has subsequently enrolled for the Ph.D programme as full time scholar in the academic year 2017-18 second semester under project fellowship.

2. He has completed the course work and obtained "A" grade in two courses and "B" grade in other two courses.

3. Having not satisfied with the grades awarded, Shri Chandra Mohan has created unhealthy environment in the lab and the corridors of the Department when other research scholars were present. He argued with his supervisor and used unparliamentary language against him.

4. In the DAC meeting held on 11.6.2018, he did not give proper explanation to his misconduct and gave irrelevant answers.

5. In the reply to the show cause notice and in his oral submissions, Shri Chandra Mohan regretted his behavior and apologized to the Supervisor, Head of Department and other Members of the Committee. He assured that he will be sincere and will ensure that such incident will not recur.

15. The Professor K.V.Jayakumar Committee, after

hearing the respondent No.1/writ petitioner decided the

matter and following order was passed by the Committee

as under:-

"While this is a fit case for terminating the fellowship of Shri Chandra Mohan, keeping in view his assurance and his social background, the Committee recommends taking a lenient view on the present misconduct and to give one final opportunity to him to pursue his research, subject to the following conditions:

1. The period from 4.6.2018 to 3.9.2018 may be treated as suspension and he will not be entitled to fellowship, during this period.

2. Shri Chandra Mohan will be on probation for a period of three months from 4.9.2018, during which his work and conduct will be under close scrutiny. In case he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff member, his fellowship may be terminated without any further notice.

3. Shri Chandra Mohan should submit an undertaking that he will be sincere and honest to his research work and shall maintain cordial relations with all concerned.

Further he understands that if he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff members, his fellowship will be terminated without any further notice."

16. The recommendations of the Committee were

approved by the Director, NITW on 28.08.2018 and the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner keeping in view the

recommendation of the Committee submitted an

undertaking on 04.09.2018 and the same is reproduced as

under:-

"I will not involve in quarrelling with either my supervisor (or) co-scholars in the Department. I believe in doing my work sincerely and honestly and do my best. If any quarrelling (or) untoward instances had done by me in future you can expel me from the department and from the institute without any notice. I request you to consider my case as humanitarian grounds and permit me to continue my research in the department of chemistry."

17. Finally, the matter came to an end on account of

issuance of Order passed by the Registrar dated

05.09.2018 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

No.NITW/RS/SC/2018/2259 September 5, 2018

Subject: Representation of Shri A. Chandra Mohan, Research Scholar

On consideration of the representation and undertaking submitted by Shri A. Chandra Mohan, Research Scholar and based on the recommendations of the Committee constituted for the purpose, the

Competent Authority has decided to take a lenient view on the misconduct of Shri Chandra Mohan and to give on final opportunity to him to pursue his research, subject to the following conditions:

1. The period from 4.6.2018 to 3.9.2018 may be treated as suspension and he will not be entitled to fellowship, during this period.

2. Shri Chandra Mohan will be on probation for a period of three months from 4.9.2018, during which his work and conduct will be under close scrutiny. In case he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff member, his fellowship may be terminated without any further notice.

3. Shri Chandra Mohan should submit an undertaking that he will be sincere and honest to his research work and shall maintain cordial relations with all concerned. Further he understands that if he is found to be indulging in any act of misconduct against his Supervisor or any other Research Scholar or other staff members, his fellowship will be terminated without any further notice.

Shri Chandra Mohan has submitted the undertaking as at S.No.3 above. Accordingly, Shri Chandra Mohan is permitted to resume his research in the Department of Chemistry under the supervision of Dr.K.Hari Prasad, Asst. Professor, with effect from 5.9.2018, subject to the above conditions.

(S. Goverdhan Rao)"

18. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner was permitted to

continue his work and the most important aspect of the

case is that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner also

requested the Director to change his Guide. The

documents on record reveal that in spite of that, an order

was finally issued by the Registrar on 05.09.2018, the DSC

Committee again convened a Meeting vide letter dated

05.12.2018 and a show cause notice was issued to the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner on 02.01.2019. The show

cause notice dated 02.01.2019 is reproduced as under:-

"Office of the Registrar National Institute of Technology WARANGAL - 506 004

No.R/RS/SC/2019/3997 dated 02.01.2019

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

Show Cause Notice for cancellation of Ph.D Registration of Shri A. Chandra Mohan, Research Scholar in Chemistry Department.

Shri Chandra Mohan may please refer to this office note No.NITW/RS/SC/2018/2259, dated 05.09.2018 regarding the final opportunity given to him to show improvement in his work and conduct. It has been reported with the approval of DSC and DAC (PG&R) that Shri Chandra Mohan, has not shown any improvement in his work and conduct and still continue to misbehave with his Supervisor and Research Scholars and others in the Department. In the light of the above the Competent Authority of the Institute has decided to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri Chandra Mohan, as to why his Ph.D Registration should not be cancelled.

Reply to this Show Cause notice should be submitted to the undersigned within seven (07) days i.e., by 09.01.2019 failing which it would be presumed that he has no representation to make and further action will be taken.

REGISTRAR

Shri A. Chandra Mohan Research Scholar Department of Chemistry NIT, Warangal.

Copy to:

1) Dean (SW) 2) Dean (FW) 3) Head, Dept. of Chemistry

4) Dr. Hari Prasad, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Chemistry

5) Associate Dean (Accounts)."

19. The original record of the case was produced before

the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in

respect of the original record, in paragraphs 36 to 38, has

observed as under:-

"36. The opening sentence of the DSC Committee Minutes reads that "as per the suggestion from the Registrar NITW (dated:30.11.2018) the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee met on 05.12.2018 at 11.00 am in the chambers of the Head of the Department to discuss on the complaint given by Dr. K. Hari Prasad, Assistant Professor against his research student Mr. A. Chandramohan (Roll No.717168) regarding his misconduct in the lab and threatening the supervisor."

37. Yet another sentence in Para 2 of the same Minutes is "In addition to this, recently the Head of the Department has received an oral complaint from one of the lady office staff about his quarreling with her."

38. In the Original File placed before this Court, and the documents placed by the respondents counsel along with the summary of arguments before this Court, there is no other complaint other than the one made by respondent No.5 on 19.06.2018 which is relevant for the purpose of this Writ Petition. The file also does not

disclose the suggestion alleged to have been made by the Registrar dated 30.11.2018 and what was the suggestion and in what circumstances the Registrar came to make a suggestion. It is also not discernible from the Minutes as to what was the reason for convening the DSC Meeting on 05.12.2018 except on the suggestion said to have made by the Registrar."

20. The aforesaid statement of fact reflected in the order

the learned Single Judge makes it very clear that there was

some oral complaint from a lady office staff and the

complaint of the appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad was

again looked into for the second time. The learned Single

Judge has also held that only a Photostat copy of the

Minutes of the Committee dated 05.12.2018 was produced

before the learned Single Judge and not the original copy

and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has been

punished again on the basis of the complaint made by the

appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad regarding the

misconduct of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in the

Lab, but the same complaint was the subject matter of the

earlier disciplinary action. The respondent No.1/writ

petitioner did submit a reply to the show cause notice on

07.01.2019 and requested the authorities to change his

supervisor, if possible. However, the Supervisor was not

changed and his work progress was recorded as

unsatisfactory. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the

statutory provisions governing the field in respect of

M.Phil/Ph.D., known as University Grants Commission

(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of

M.Phil/Ph.D., Degrees) Regulations, 2016 (for short, 'the

Regulations, 2016) and Regulation 8.3 is reproduced as

under:-

"8. Research Advisory Committee and its functions:

      8.1     ---
              8.1.1 --
              8.1.2 --
              8.1.3 --
              8.2     ---
      8.3     In case the progress of the research scholar is

unsatisfactory, the Research Advisory Committee shall record the reasons for the same and suggest corrective measures. If the research scholar fails to implement these corrective measures, the Research Advisory Committee may recommend to the Institution/College with specific reasons for cancellation of the registration of the research scholar."

21. Thus, no material on record is produced before this

Court nor before the learned Single Judge to establish that

the appellant No.1/institution has suggested corrective

measures in case of unsatisfactory progress and by simply

mentioning unsatisfactory progress in the show cause

notice, after receiving the reply, his registration has been

cancelled and therefore, as the action of the appellant

No.1/institution was contrary to the Regulations, 2016,

the learned Single Judge was certainly justified in setting

aside the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge has

also taken into account the statutory provisions dealing

with academic matters published under the Statutes of the

National Institute of Technology Act, 2009 (for short, 'the

NIT Act, 2009). The relevant statutory provision as

contained under Section 8 and Schedule 'C' of the

aforesaid Act, reads as under:-

"Section 8 - Powers of the Senate (First Statute)

(i) ---

(ii) ---

(iii) ---

(iv) Appoint Advisory Committees or Expert Committees or both for the Departments or Centres of the institute to make recommendations on academic matters connected with the working of the Departments or Centres;

(v) appoint Committees from amongst the members of the Senate, other teachers of the Institute and experts from outside to advise on such specific and important academic matters as may be referred to any such Committee by the Senate;

(vi) consider the recommendations of the Advisory Committees attached to various Departments or Centres and that of Expert and other Committees and take such action (including the making of recommendations to the Board) as warranted by each case;

(vii) ---

(viii) ---

(ix) promote research and academic development or activity within the Institute and seek reports on such research or academic development or activity from the persons engaged therein;

Schedule 'C'- "Deanships" (Statute 19(5))

3. Dean (Students Welfare)

(c) He/She will advise the Director in matters related to students; discipline and welfare.

(g) He/She will conduct the enquiries of students indulged in indiscipline.

(h) He/She will correspond with Parents/Guardians of Students about their progress with individual problems/Welfare."

22. In the present case, the appellant No.1/Institution

has ignored the statutory provisions as contained in the

Regulations, 2016 as well as under the NIT Act, 2009,

there was no enquiry conducted by the Dean at any point

of time and after taking a decision against the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner treating him under suspension, the

subsequent action against the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner was triggered only account of complaint of the

appellant No.4/Dr. K.Hari Prasad and allegedly some oral

complaint made by some unknown lady staff and therefore,

in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single

Judge was justified in quashing the impugned order, dated

28/29.01.2019 as well as the consequential proceedings

dated 30.07.2019 and 18.11.2019 and the final Senate

proceedings dated 03.01.2020.

23. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the

case, the change of Guide has become necessary and

therefore, the Director, NITW shall pass necessary orders

for changing the Guide of the respondent No.1/writ

petitioner as enough bad blood has been generated

between the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the

appellant No.4/Dr K.Hari Prasad. The exercise of passing

necessary orders for changing the Guide shall be

concluded within a period of thirty days from today.

24. Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed and time

lost in litigation shall not come in way of the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner in completing the Ph.D., keeping in

view the tenure which is provided for completion of Ph.D.,

programme under the UGC Regulations, 2016.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

08.02.2022 Pln