Civil Writ Petition No.19685 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19685 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20, 2011 Dr. B.S. Bangarwa .....Petitioner VERSUS Ch. Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Meena Madan, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition primarily to challenge the inquiry report on the ground that the same is illegal arbitrary and held in violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing order dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-34) on the ground that the same is vitiated for violation of natural justice, inasmuch as the Vice-Chancellor has participated in the proceedings of the Board of Management while deciding his appeal and, thus, it would show that he has become a judge of his own cause. As per the petitioner, he has been victimized as he had Civil Writ Petition No.19685 of 2009 -2- some differences with Prof. P.S. Malik, who was Head of the Department. One Ms. Sunita Rani was doing the thesis under the petitioner. Prof. PS Malik Head of the Department was relieved for 28 days. He wrote a letter to Prof. Raj Singh to cancel the thesis seminar of Ms. Sunita Rani. Seminar, however, was conducted successfully, which could not be attended by Prof. P.S. Malik. Thesis submitted by Ms. Sunita Rani was, accordingly, submitted for onward transmission to the Dean, Post Graduate Studies (PGS). The Dean, however, sent back 3 copies of the thesis and kept one copy for onward transmission to the external examiner. Prof. P.S. Malik wrote a letter that the thesis contained serious mistakes and the same be returned. Professor and Head of the Department, therefore, returned 4 copies of the thesis after necessary corrections. For this, Prof. P.S. Malik sought explanation of the petitioner. He was also issued a notice on 4.1.2005. Some objections were pointed out by evaluating thesis, which were also removed and Ms. Sunita Rani appeared for examination and after that, another thesis evaluation report was circulated amongst the members of the Committee. To cut the long story in short, there was some difference in the manner of evaluating thesis. On account of this, some differences arose between the petitioner and Prof. P.S. Malik. As per the petitioner, Prof. Malik had also some difference of opinion with the earlier Head of the Department and he wanted the petitioner to toe his line. On account of this, Prof. Malik wrote a letter to the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.19685 of 2009 -3- with original evaluation report along with some suggestions made by the external examiner. It is alleged that the petitioner did not return the original report. It is also alleged that the petitioner had submitted another evaluation report. An explanation was sought as to why the petitioner had replaced the original evaluation report. The petitioner in turn approached the Head of the Department. The petitioner was intimated that the Vice-Chancellor had ordered inquiry by Prof. K.S. Dhindsa. The petitioner was issued memo of charges on 21.3.2006. The petitioner replied to the memo of charges. Thereafter, departmental action was initiated against him. Ultimately, on the basis of the findings of the inquiry report, the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of stoppage of three increments along with some integrity doubtful remark in his Annual Confidential Report. The statuary appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Board of Management and he has, accordingly, filed this writ petition. The petitioner has made number of submissions to challenge the inquiry findings, but primarily would submit that he was not given fair opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings. In this regard, he would point out that the petitioner had approached the inquiry officer for examining Dr. S.R. Ahlawat, Professor (Sociology) and Head of the Department of Maharish Dayanand University Rohtak, who was external examiner, as his witness. The petitioner concedes that initially he could not include the name of Dr. S.R. Ahlawat in the list of the witnesses and after realizing mistake, he had initiated letter dated 9.10.2006 requesting Civil Writ Petition No.19685 of 2009 -4- the inquiry officer to permit him to examine Dr. S.R. Ahlawat as his witness. Dr. S.R. Ahlawat was the external examiner for thesis submitted by Ms. Sunita Rani and had also submitted evaluation report of her thesis. As per the petitioner, he is the material witness in this case and his examination is the most important to ascertain the true facts regarding the evaluation report of thesis. It would be essential requirement in justice. His request was declined by the Inquiry officer on 9.10.2006 and thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Vice-Chancellor also on the same date i.e. 9.10.2006. Concededly, Dr. S.R. Ahlawat was not permitted to be examined as a witness. The nature of allegations have been noticed above. It is not disputed before me that Professor S.R. Ahlawat, who was the external examiner and had submitted his report, is an essential witness. Considering the same, counsel for the respondents was required to have instructions, if the respondents would be prepared to continue with the inquiry by providing adequate and due opportunity to the petitioner to examine this witness and thereafter, pass a fresh order. In response, counsel for the respondents have placed before me a communication received from the University to say that the petitioner could not take action in time to ask for examination of Dr. S.R. Ahlwat and had moved the application when the evidence of the University and all the witnesses had already been recorded. It is, accordingly, sought to be contended that the inquiry officer had conducted the inquiry fairly and in Civil Writ Petition No.19685 of 2009 -5- accordance with law and the procedure where the petitioner was given due opportunity to examine his witnesses. It is, thus, stated that there is no violation of principle of natural justice or procedural irregularity, which may require the inquiry to be continued from the stage of such violation. It is also pointed out that Dr. D.C. Gupta, who was inquiry officer, has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation and he cannot now be available as an inquiry officer to continue with the inquiry. It is, accordingly, urged that this Court may pass any order and it will be obligatory on the part of the University to comply with any such direction. I have considered the issue of examination of Dr. S.R. Ahlawat as an essential witness for the defence of the petitioner. He, in fact is the one, who was the external examiner of the student and had submitted the report. If the allegation is that the petitioner had changed the report and had replaced the report of the external examiner, Dr. S.R. Ahlawat would be really an essential witness to decide this fact. His examination would not only be essential for the defence, but shall be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner did not get fair opportunity to defend himself. His request for examining this witness was unfairly declined. His request was denied, when the inquiry was still in progress and had not been concluded. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the respondents are directed to continue with the same inquiry from the stage of defence and by permitting the examination of Dr. S.R. Ahlawat as a witness. The department would also be at liberty to Civil Writ Petition No.19685 of 2009 -6- examine any additional witness, in case it is so required or considered essential. If the earlier enquiry officer is not available to continue with the inquiry, the department would be at liberty to appoint any other inquiry officer to continue with the same inquiry. The impugned order need not be set aside and would continue unless some different view is taken after completion of the present proceedings. After examination of witness/witnesses, the competent authority would be at liberty to pass a fresh order and can maintain the present order or the punishment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. It is viewed that the petitioner did not get fair opportunity to defend himself and so the above directions. The respondents would be at liberty to pass any order on the basis of fresh evidence. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same if he is still left with any grievance. January 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika I JUDGE