CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 995 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 20th September, 2010. Dr. Balwinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. Respondent through Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 01.01.2010 [Annexure P-14] passed by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar on the basis of the review decision taken by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 03.12.2009 [Annexure P-13], whereby the punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments with cumulative effect, disqualification from Headship of the Department for three years as well as no assignment of Supervisorship of new Ph.D. Students for one year, has been imposed on the petitioner for his alleged act of 'plagiarism' in Research papers/Research Articles. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the Inquiry Report [Annexure P-3] holding him guilty of plagiarism. [2]. The petitioner joined the respondent University as a Lecturer on 15.12.1990 in its Department of Commerce and Business Management. While working as such, he was further CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-2-:: appointed as a Reader in the University. [3]. Shorn of the details, it appears that an anonymous complaint was received against the petitioner alleging 'plagiarism' in respect of three published articles written by him. The undisputed facts are that no copy of the anonymous complaint was sent to the petitioner nor any formal charge-sheet based upon the said complaint was ever served upon him. The Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University constituted an Inquiry Committee comprising three Professors from different places to inquire into the allegation levelled against the petitioner and submit their report. Unfortunately, the Inquiry Committee also did not issue any notice to the petitioner nor sought any explanation nor associated him at any level while conducting the inquiry, except that the Committee allegedly gave an 'oral personal hearing' to the petitioner and his co-Authors/Associates when “all these persons admitted to the fact that they indulged in the reported instances of copying...”. [4]. Based upon the afore-stated inquiry report, the Dean, Academic Affairs of the University, vide Memo dated 02.12.2008 [Annexure P-5] formulated the nature of punishment to be awarded to the petitioner and his Associates and based upon those recommendations, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 04.12.2008 decided as follows:- “It has been passed that due to plagiarism committed in the research papers/research articles by Dr. Balwinder Singh, Reader, Department of Commerce and Business Management, four yearly increments have been stopped with cumulative effect and he has been debarred from the headship of the department for another 4 years from CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-3-:: the date of the decision of the syndicate. It has also been passed that he should not be appointed as a Supervisor to new Ph.D. Students for 4 years from the date of the decision of the Syndicate”. [5]. No show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner even before taking the above reproduced decision. [6]. When the petitioner came to know about the decision taken by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 04.12.2008, he submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor on 06.04.2009 [Annexure P-10] wherein he specifically raised, inter-alia, the following issues:- “3. I fail to understand the nature of inquiry committee. No proper procedure was followed to conduct the inquiry. Neither me nor my co-authors were asked in writing to appear before the committee. Even my statement was not recorded. I could not find out the reasons till date that why my response was sought for three papers and inquiry committee was given five papers. 4. To my dismay, the inquiry committee observed in a very blatant manner in its report that I have admitted the charge of plagiarism which is completely unfounded. 5. The Committee submitted report on 22.08.2007 and it was presented in Syndicate held 02.09.2008 which means a gap of 12 months. I had been thinking all these months that the committee has accepted my version and has exonerated me. I could not find out the reason as to why the report was presented in syndicate after so many months”. [Emphasis applied]. [7]. The petitioner thereafter represented before various other authorities in the University which were finally taken up by the CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-4-:: Syndicate in its meeting held on 07.12.2009 wherein after reviewing its earlier decision dated 04.12.2008, the Syndicate decided as follows:- “The Syndicate while reviewing that decision dated 04.12.2008 has decided as follows: 1. Instead of four, two yearly increments with cumulative effect of Dr. Balwinder Singh, Reader, Department of Commerce and Business Management are being stopped for plagiarism in research papers/research articles. 2. He is being disqualified for 3 years instead of 4 years from being the head of the department. 3. He should not be appointed as a Supervisor of new Ph.D. Cases for 1 year from the date of the meeting of the Syndicate [3.12.2009]”. [8]. Based upon the afore-stated decision of the Syndicate, the impugned order dated 01.01.2010 [Annexure P-14] has been issued, giving rise to these proceedings. [9]. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit defending the impugned action. [10]. The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner has been punished by following the prescribed procedure? [11]. The affairs of the respondent University are governed by the provisions contained in the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar Act, 1969 as amended from time to time and the Statutes framed thereunder. The Calendar [Volume I] of the University comprising the Acts and Statutes, provides for the penalties to be imposed on the employees of the University and the procedure to be followed for imposing such punishments, and relevant part thereof reads as CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-5-:: follows:- “33[i] The following penalties may for good and sufficient reason be imposed upon any employee of the university:- [a] Censure. [b] Withholding of increment or promotion. [c] reduction to a lower post or to a lower stage in the same post. [d] Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the university by negligence or breach of orders. [e] Removal from the service of the University which does not disqualify from future employment. [f] Dismissal from the service of the university which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. [g] Compulsory retirement. Provided that where it is proposed to take action as mentioned under clause [c], [e], [f] or [g] above, in the case of an employee on foreign service, a recommendation to that effect shall be made to his parent department and the parent department may take such action as it considers necessary on such recommendations. [ii] except where otherwise laid down in the Statutes, the authority competent to appoint shall be competent to impose any kind of punishment including removal from office on grounds of misconduct, gross insufficiency, etc. in the event of any such orders of punishment by the competent authority, the employee concern shall have the right of appeal to the next higher authority whose decision shall be final. [iii] No penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be imposed unless the employee has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing causes against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. [iv] The grounds on which it is proposed to take action CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-6-:: under clause [c], [e], [f] or [g] shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated in writing to the employee concerned and he shall be required within a reasonable time to state in writing whether he admits the truth of all or any of the charges, what explanation or defence if any, he has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the appointing authority so directs, an oral inquiry shall be held at which all evidence shall be heard as to such of the charges are not admitted. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to have such witness called as he may wish provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call any witness. The proceeding shall contain sufficient record of the evidence and the statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. When it is proposed to take action under clause [a], [b] or [d] no order shall be passed imposing a penalty on an employee unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation has been taken into consideration”. [Emphasis applied] [12]. On a plain reading of the statutory provisions, reproduced above, it is apparent that even before imposing the punishments prescribed under clauses [a], [b] or [d], namely, 'Censure', 'withholding of increment or promotion' or 'recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University ....... an adequate opportunity to make representation before imposition of such penalty is sine-qua-non. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been subjected to three punishments, namely, stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, disqualified for three CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-7-:: years from Headship of the Department and non-assignment of Supervisorship of new Ph.D. Students for one year, which, in my considered view, falls in clause [c] as it amounts to reduction to a lower stage in the same post. For imposition of such punishment, it was imperative upon the University to follow the procedure as laid down in clause [iv] of Para 33 in terms whereof the grounds on which such action is proposed to be taken are required to be reduced in the form of charge[s] and communicated to the employee concerned in writing and the punishment can be imposed only after an adequate opportunity of hearing, namely, a regular inquiry is held. [13]. In the case in hand, no formal charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner. No opportunity was afforded to him to submit his defence plea or lead any evidence. The petitioner has specifically denied that he ever admitted the allegations during the course of oral personal hearing alleged to have been granted by the Inquiry Committee. Be that as it may, once the petitioner had specifically denied such admission, it was imperative upon the University Authorities to return a firm finding of fact as to whether or not the petitioner had admitted his guilt. [14]. As noticed above, the University Authorities have proceeded against the petitioner in a manner totally alien to the principles of audi-alteram-partem. The proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Committee, which, it appears, was a preliminary inquiry only, have been treated as 'regular inquiry' and that too without associating the petitioner. Not only that, no copy of the inquiry report was ever supplied to him before accepting it or deciding to impose the penalty. The petitioner was not heard even on the quantum of punishment. CWP No. 995 of 2010. ::-8-:: The entire exercise has been carried out behind the back of the petitioner which apparently lacks bona-fide. Strangely, two of the punishments imposed upon the petitioner do not find mention in clause [i] of Para 33 which enlists the types of punishments that can be imposed upon an employee. Be that as it may, an adequate opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner before taking a punitive action against him. [15]. The fact that the subsequent representations made by the petitioner were considered by the Syndicate also does not cut much ice as such like post-decisional hearing does not meet the requirement of principles of natural justice. [16]. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed with costs of `10,000/-; the impugned orders dated 3.12.2009 [Annexure P-13] and 01.01.2010 [Annexure P-14] are hereby quashed. However, the respondent University shall be at liberty to treat the inquiry report [Annexure P-3] as a 'preliminary inquiry report' and proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law. [17]. Dasti. September 20, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE