IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 158 of 2011 (S/B) Dr. S.K. Sharma … Petitioner Versus Chancellor, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Shrinagar, through its Registrar, And Others. … Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. CSC, for the respondent no. 2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate, for the respondents no. 3 & 4. Date of Judgment : 11.7.2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) A letter, written by the Principal of the College to the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College, resulted in a probe into certain actions on the part of the petitioner. The result of the probe, having been placed before the Managing Committee of the College, it decided on 26.5.2010 to appoint a three- member Committee with a request to them to issue the chargesheet, and thereupon to proceed with the matter. Accordingly, the members of the three-member Committee, on 6.6.2010, issued a chargesheet to the petitioner. The same contained five charges. After petitioner gave a reply thereto, he also independently pointed out that one of the members of the Committee cannot act as a member thereof for he is personally interested. That member, though issued the chargesheet jointly with other two members on 6.6.2010, and though participated in the proceedings 2 of the Committee till 10.8.2010, purported to separate himself from the Committee thereafter, but appeared before the other two members of the Committee on 12.8.2010 as a witness against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to suggest that in between 10.8.2010 and 12.8.2010, any other sitting of the Committee was held. The said state of affairs clearly smacks the whole proceeding. We, accordingly, accepting the submission made on behalf of the Managing Committee of the College, permit the Managing Committee of the College to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioner, after quashing the enquiry report submitted by two members of the Committee and all steps taken subsequent thereto. 2. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition, quash the enquiry report and all proceedings subsequent thereto. 3. Inasmuch delegation by the disciplinary authority, namely, the Managing Committee, of the power to issue chargesheet upon a Committee is questionable, we direct the Managing Committee to issue, if it thinks fit, a chargesheet against the petitioner, giving him such time as the Managing Committee may deem fit and proper to give reply thereto. In the event, it appears thereafter that an enquiry is required to be made, the Managing Committee shall appoint an Enquiry Officer, who shall enquire into the matter and submit his report, whereupon the Managing Committee shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. In the event, it is decided by the Managing Committee to issue a chargesheet against the petitioner, 3 simultaneously therewith, the Managing Committee may suspend the petitioner. 4. In order to enable the Managing Committee to exercise its power, as above, we direct the petitioner not to rejoin his duties for a period of 15 days from today. It is hoped and expected, taking into account that the petitioner is reaching his age of superannuation on 11.9.2011, all efforts shall be made to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as quickly as possible, preferably before the date petitioner is due to retire. Inasmuch as because of the impugned order of punishment, petitioner was prevented from rendering duties attached to the post he was appointed to, the Managing Committee is directed to decide what payment, if any, petitioner shall be entitled to from the date of his dismissal until 15 days from now, in accordance with the service conditions applicable to the petitioner. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 11.7.2011 11.7.2011 Prabodh