L.P.A. No. 535/2008. Case: University of Delhi and Ors. Vs Harpal Singh Sangwan. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | L.P.A. No. 535/2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.J.S. Rupal, Adv. and For Respondents: K. Venkatraman, Adv. |
| Judges | Dipak Misra, C.J. and Manmohan, J. |
| Issue | Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 6(18) and 6(21); Constitution of India - Article 226; Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 - Section 18AA, 18AA(1) and 18F; High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 45 |
| Judgement Date | October 07, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Dipak Misra, C.J.
1. In this intra-Court appeal, the appellant-University (hereafter referred to as "the appellant") has called in question the legal acceptability of the order dated 15th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6512/2007.
2. The facts which have been uncurtained are that the respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") was a student of M.A. (Russian) in the Department of Slavonic and Finno Ugrain Studies in the appellant University in 2005-07. He appeared in the final year examination in the said course and at that stage he also appeared in the entrance examination for the Post Graduate course in "Hindi Journalism" for the academic session 2007-08. His result of the MA (Russian) final year examination was declared on 2nd August, 2007. As set forth, the result of the entrance examination for Post Graduate course in Hindi Journalism was published in the first week of August, 2007 and the name of the respondent was initially displayed in the list of successful candidates but the same was substituted by another list which did not reflect his name. At this stage, the respondent received a communication dated 30th July, 2007 whereby the University, in exercise of powers vested under Ordinance XV-B, directed that the respondent be not admitted in any course in the University of Delhi for a period of next five years. Because of the said notification, he was denied the admission to Post Graduate Course in Hindi Journalism. Being dissatisfied with the said communication and action of the University, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the said notification dated 30th July, 2007 issued by the University and further to command the University to extend the benefit of admission in any course and further to consider his candidature for the Post Graduate Course in Hindi Journalism.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the University issued a notification on 26th November, 2007 stating that the competent authority had decided to grant post-decisional hearing to the respondent and accordingly constituted a committee consisting of Prof. V.K. Bhasin, Department of Zoology, as the Chairperson and Dr. M. Rahman, Acting Proctor as the Member to look into the complaints against the respondent. The committee was required to submit a report to the Vice- Chancellor within ten days from the date of issue of the notification. The Chairperson of the enquiry committee issued a notice dated 26/28-11-2007 giving an opportunity to the respondent to appear before the committee for hearing on 3rd December, 2007 with regard to his grievance relating to the imposition of punishment under Ordinance XV-B along with the relevant records. He was also afforded an opportunity to present his case before the committee by filing a written statement. The respondent, in pursuance of the said notice, appeared before the committee and the committee put to the respondent four complaints which had formed the basis of the action taken against him. Thereafter, the committee, as asked for by the respondent, supplied the documents and the respondent filed his reply. After the enquiry was over, the Vice-Chancellor, on the basis of the enquiry report, arrived at the conclusion that the response of the respondent was unsatisfactory and unacceptable and there was no justification to alter the decision. The said order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor on 8/9-5-2008. The said order passed by the Vice-Chancellor along with the representation of the respondent were made available before the learned Single Judge by filing affidavit.
4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the earlier notification / communication dated 30th July, 2007 is patently illegal as the principles of natural justice were not followed and further the order was an unreasoned one; that taking recourse to post-decisional hearing was not an adequate substitute; that the whole exercise of post-decisional hearing was an eye wash and was also to cover up the laches in the initial order; that the University has failed to establish any of the allegations leveled against the writ petitioner for taking action under Ordinance XV-B which deals with maintenance of discipline among the students of the University; that the enquiry made by the enquiry committee in the course of post-decisional hearing was totally in violation of the norms inasmuch as the respondent was not informed about the charges leveled against him; and that the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor placing reliance on the enquiry report was absolutely vulnerable.
5. The learned Single Judge first dwelled upon the issue whether a post- decisional hearing could be an adequate substitute to save the impugned action of the appellants from the vice of arbitrariness. He referred to the decision in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. UOI (1981) 1 SCC 664, K.I. Shephard and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (1988) 1 SCR 188: AIR 1988 SC 686, H.L. Trehan and Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (1989) 1 SCC 764 and Shekhar Ghosh v. U.O.I. and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 331. After placing reliance on the said authorities, the learned Single Judge came to hold that post-decisional hearing cannot be a substitute for a pre-decisional hearing; that where a pre-decisional hearing is not excluded by the statute only in cases of exceptional urgency, where it is not possible to give a pre-decisional hearing on account of the emergent situation the pre-decisional hearing may be dispensed with provided a full review or appeal on merits against the decision is available. The learned Single Judge has further held that the principle that minimum compliance of the rules of natural justice should be observed as far as possible.
6. After so holding, the learned Single Judge referred to two complaints made against the writ petitioner in the year 2005 and the other two which were made in the year 2007. He took note of Ordinance XV-B to arrive at the conclusion that the same does not exclude the compliance of the principles of natural justice and further it does not lay down any condition with regard to the time period within which action could have been taken by the Vice-Chancellor against the writ petitioner and, hence, there was no urgency to issue the impugned notification. The learned Single Judge further held that in exercise of power under Ordinance XV-B, the Vice-Chancellor, at any time of the academic session, can pass an order and there was no necessity that it should be passed before the student takes admission in any other course in the University. It was further opined by the learned Single Judge that the impugned notification was issued to block the move of the respondent to take the admission in the Post Graduate Certificate Course in Hindi Journalism for the academic session 2007-08 and, therefore, post-decisional hearing stated to have been granted to him was not a legally sustainable substitute. It is worth noting that the plea of the University that the post-decisional hearing sub-served the cause of justice was not accepted. The decisions in Narender Singh v. University of Delhi 70 (1997) DLT 509, Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Haldia) and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764, Satyavir Singh v. Union of India (1985) 4 SCC 252 and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 237 were distinguished on facts.
7. After dealing with the aforesaid facet, the learned Single Judge adverted to the complaint made and came to hold that the complainants who had made the complaints against him were not called upon to give their statements before the enquiry committee. The security staff, who were allegedly prevented by the respondent from performing their duties or threatened by him, were not called. The complaint made by Mr. Ravinder Kumar, P.S. in the office of the Director, South Delhi Campus, on 17th April, 2007 was not addressed to by the committee and hence, could not have been treated to have been proved. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge addressed himself with regard to the complaint made against the respondent by Prof. S.K. Vij on 1st May, 2007 who had alleged that on 20th April, 2007 when a meeting of the Departmental Council was being held, the respondent barged into the meeting to make certain demands /claims and he was requested to wait for some time as the meeting was in progress. Later, he was invited to make his representation. At that stage, he behaved in a manner unbecoming of a student. As found by the learned Single Judge, the enquiry committee in its report records that during the course of the enquiry, the respondent / writ petitioner had admitted that he entered into the room of Dr. S.K. Vij, Head of the Department, without his permission when the Head of the Department was presiding over a meeting of the committee and from the same, the enquiry committee concluded that the respondent failed to maintain proper discipline as he had forcibly entered into the room of the HOD when a statutory meeting was going on and misbehaved with the HOD. The learned Single Judge repelled the stand of the University that the complaints made against the respondent were proved. The entire enquiry was an eye-wash and if such a course of action is allowed, the University would victimize any student or ex-student by collecting such complaints and proceeding against him...
To continue reading
Request your trial