PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 06-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 63 
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA 
A 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.8224 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 6, 2015 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKiiOPADHAYA, AND 
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ] 
B 
c 
Service law: Termination of service - Respondent-
University decided to punish the appellant and 
subsequently framed memorandum of charges - Show 
cause notice was issued and inquiry was conducted just to D 
give a colour of legal procedure - Departmental inquiries 
conducted against the appellant, were in violation of rules 
of natural justice - Order of termination cannot be upheld. 
Administrative law: 
E 
Bias - Retired judge appointed as inquiry officer by 
respondent-University to conduct Disciplinary inquiry 
against the appellant -
Retired judge before his 
appointment as judge was a lawyer of respondent-
University - Held: Disciplinary authority should not engage F 
such retiredjudge as inquiry officer as it may amount to 
bias. 
Natural justice - Held: If any person who is or was a 
legal practitioner, including a retired judge is appointed as G 
Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, 
the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged . 
employee is unfair. 
63 
H 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. First charge-sheet memorandum dated 2"d 
November 2005. The Inquiry Officer, by its report held 
that the appellant had concealed the fact of his removal 
8 from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand 
University where he was on deputation with a view to 
mislead the D!')lhi University and that despite his not 
being Director of ACBR, he continued to describe 
himself as Founder Director or Director, ACBR with a 
c view to give a misleading impression, stand proved. 
Thereafter the formal order of punishment was issued 
communicating displeasure of the Executive Council, 
·holding the act of the appellant to be unbecoming of a 
teacher of the University and prohibiting the appellant 
o from being associated with any affairs of ACBR in any 
capacity whatsoever. The said facts showed that the 
respondent first decided to punish the appellant and 
only thereafter memorandum of charges was framed, 
show-cause notice was issued and inquiry was 
E conducted, just to give it a colour of legal procedure. 
There is nothing to suggest that the appellant 'wilfully' 
suppressed the material fact that he was removed from 
service before completion of term of his deputation to 
mislead the respondents. It is true that the appellant in 
F normal course should ·have informed the Delhi 
University before rejoining that he has been removed 
. from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand 
University, Jhansi before the completion of his 
deputation period. Such action can be termed to be 
G "dereliction. of duty" but cannot be held to be 
misconduct for the purpose of restraining the appellant 
permanently from appointment to the post of Director, 
AC BR. It is not in dispute that the appellant was the First 
H Director of the ACBR. Therefore, in hi$ letter-head he 
PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. UNIVERSITY OF 
65 
DELHI 
has shown him as Founder Director of ACBR, that A 
cannot be said to be against the Code of Conduct to 
hold the same as 'misconduct' on the part of the 
appellant. This apart, as there is no provision in the 
concerned statute to withhold appointment permanently, 
it was not open to the University to pass such order. B 
For the said reasons, the order of punishment cannot 
be upheld. [Paras 12,14 - 17] [82-D, 88-E-H; 89-A-B, E-
H; 90-A-E] 
2. Second/third chargesheet - Memorandum dated c 
27th August 2007 and 16 October 2007. A fresh 
memorandum was issued by the University on 271h 
August, 2007 alleging that the appellant caused ACBR 
to pay an amount of Rs.16,63,284/- towards unauthorized 
expenditures incurred by him like telephone bills and D 
bills of security guards and peon, during the period 1999-
2005 though he was not functioning as Director of ACBR 
during the said period. In the memorandum dated 16th 
October, 2007, the appellant was imputed with the 
charge that by acting as a signatory who subscribed E 
his name to the registration of ACBR as a society and 
by verifying the affidavit which affirmed that he has no 
objection towards the location of the registered office 
of ACBR in the· University Campus, the appellant 
attempted to misappropriate the assets of the University. F 
In the inquiry report, the background of appoin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.