ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction after calling for the records from the respondents relating to Memorandum No. UH/Estt- 1/88/111, dated 1-2-1988, and quash the same being violative of principles of natural justice.
2. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petitioner is whether the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice while imposing punishment on the petitioner though the impugned proceeding as alleged by the petitioner.
3. Petitioner is a Professor in the Faculty of School of Life Sciences in the first respondent-University. Being a senior Professor, Students of M. Phil., and Ph. D., are assigned to the petitioner. It seems one student by name Miss Rita Ghosh, who was assigned to the petitioner had filed a complaint against the petitioner with the Dean of School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad on 9-12-1987 alleging that the petitioner had misbehaved with her. The incident which took place on 13-11-1987 prompted her to file the complaint. It seems on 13-11-1987 the petitioner tried to impose his desire on her inside the culture room where other research scholars were present in the laboratory. Basing on this complaint dated 9-12-1987, Prof. K. Subba Rao, Dean of Faculty of School of Life Sciences, addressed a letter to the second respondent Vice-Chancellor on 10-12-1987 enclosing a xerox copy of the complaint received by him from Miss Rita Ghosh. He requested the second respondent Vice-Chancellor to take appropriate actin against the petitioner. The second respondent Vice-Chancellor seems to have discussed this matter with Mr. K. Subba Rao, Dean of School of Life Sciences. Later he requested the three members of the Executive Council consisting of Professor G. Mehta, Dr. S. Marathe and Ms. J. Kameswari, to ascertain the view of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was called to the chamber of Prof. Mehta and the matter was discussed with him, Excepting an oral discussion, neither a copy of the complaint lodged by Miss Rita Ghosh nor the gist of the complaint were supplied to the petitioner in that discussion. The petitioner in the discussion with the three members stated that he had taken an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from Miss Rita Ghosh as loan, in connection with the marriage ceremony of his daughter. The petitioner had also stated that he had also taken some amounts from other students also in connection with the marriage ceremony of his daughter. The petitioner felt that he should not have borrowed money from the students and assured the three members that he would immediately return the money to Miss Rita Ghosh. He had also volunteered to write a letter to the father of Miss Rita Ghosh conveying his regrets about the misgivings, if any, which have cropped up in the mind of Miss Rita Ghosh. The petitioner had also stated to the three members that he would meet the second respondent Vice Chancellor and discuss with him.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner met the second respondent Vice-Chancellor on the next day. Even during the discussion with the second respondent Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner was not furnished either a copy of the complaint or the gist of the complaint lodged by Miss Rita Ghosh, enabling him to give a proper reply. The petitioner felt that the amount borrowed from Miss Rita Ghosh is the only issue troubling in the mind of the second respondent Vice-Chancellor, as such he expressed his regrets and promised that the would return the money immediately to Miss Rita Ghosh. Accordingly, he sent regret letters both to the second respondent Vice-Chancellor and the father of Miss Rita Ghosh. Along with the letter sent to the father of Miss Rita Ghosh, he had also sent the amount of Rs. 2,000/- which was acknowledged by the father of Miss Rita Ghosh.
5. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent-Vice Chancellor circulated a confidential note to the Executive Council pointing out the gist of the complaint made by Miss Rita Ghosh as also the gist of discussing of the three members with the petitioner. In that note the gist of the regret letters of the petitioners where also indicated. Basing on the confidential note of the second respondent-Vice Chancellor, the Executive Council met on 30-1-1988 and resolved as under :
” (1) Professor H. N. Singh be debarred from any administrative responsibilities in the future;
(2) No girl student be assigned to him for a research course, M. Phil., or Ph. D.;
(3) That he be warned of the serious consequences if any further instance of misconduct is reported against him; and
(4) Two future increments due to him will be stopped with cumulative effect as per the ordinances included in the service conditions of the teachers of the University.”
The decision of the Executive Council dated 30-1-1988 was communicated to the petitioner through the impugned proceedings. Through the said proceedings the petitioner was asked to give written representation on or before 15-2-1988. Pursuant to the issuance of the impugned proceedings, the petitioner submitted his representation to the second respondent-Vice Chancellor on 15-2-1988. In the representation the petitioner pointed out that the Vice-Chancellor, on the date of discussion with him, had only asked him to write a letter of apology admitting that he had taken an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as loan from Miss Rita Ghosh. It was also pointed out in that representation that the Vice-Chancellor had assured him that the mater would be treated as closed once the apology letter is sent and the money is returned. The petitioner had pointed that the decision is one sided and no opportunity was given to him to put forth his case. He, therefore, requested the Executive Council to reconsider the issue and revoke the punishment imposed against him pursuant to the decision of the Executive Council dated 30-1-1988.
6. The Executive Council in its meeting held on 2-4-1988 considered the representation of the petitioner dated 15-2-1988 and resolved to review the effect of cumulative stoppage of two increments after one year. However, the Executive Council rejected to review the other three punishments. The decision of the Executive Council dated 2-4-1988 was communicated to the petitioner through proceedings No. UH/E-1/88/932 dated 4-8-1988.
7. The petitioner vexed with the attitude of the University authorities, addressed a letter to the second respondent-Vice Chancellor on 14-7-190 reminding him that on 7-2-1988 he wrote a letter to the Acting Registrar requesting him to provide the charges on the basis of which he Executive Council decided to impose punishment on 301-1988. In the letter dated 14-7-1990 the petitioner reiterated his request to furnish a copy of the complaint lodged by Miss Rita Ghosh so that he could give a proper reply. On 16-7-1990 also the petitioner requested the Vice-Chancellor to furnish a copy of the complaint. Surprisingly on 7-9-1990 the petitioner received a letter from the Deputy Registrar, Establishment, intimating that his request to withdraw all the punishments awarded by the Executive Council on 30-1-1988 cannot be acceded to, since his request was rejected by the Executive Council on 18-8-1990.
8. In this background, it is contended on behalf on the petitioner that there is no fair play in the entire episode. He has neither been supplied with a copy of the complaint nor the gist of the complaint enabling him to put forth his case. The three members who invited him to the chamber’s of professor Mehta had orally informed him of the complaint of Miss Rita Ghosh. The petitioner was not made known the details of the complaint of Miss Rita Ghosh. In the discussion with the three members the petitioner had stated that he had borrowed money not only form Miss Ghosh but also from other students in order to perform the marriage of his daughter. He also expressed his regrets for such incident. The second respondent-Vice Chancellor, whom the petitioner had met on the advice of the Executive council, had also not provided him with either a copy of the complaint or the gist of the complaint lodged by Miss Rita Ghosh, Since the matter was a very sensitive one involving the student’s career, in order to avoid controversy, the petitioner on the advise of the second respondent-Vice Chancellor sent letters of apology to the second respondent-Vice Chancellor as well as the father of the complainant along with the amount of Rs. 2,000/-. At that time, he was made to understand that the matter has been closed. But behind his back the second respondent-Vice Chancellor surreptitiously circulated a note to the Executive council for taking a decision against the petitioner. The Executive Council which met on 30-1-1988 decided to impose punishment on the petitioner as stated supra. The petitioner’s main grievance seems to be that he had not been provided with an opportunity to put forth his case before imposing punishment. Therefore, the petitioner states that al norms have been violated and has been made to suffer not only financially but also mentally as the issue will have a telling effect on his career and moral.
9. To meet the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner, a counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents through the Registrar of the University of Hyderabad. Though certain allegations have been made against the second respondent-Vice Chancellor, he has not chosen to file a counter. In the counter filed, it is stated that since the matter is a delicate affair, there was unrest in the University Campus. Therefore, the University thought that the matter be decided without any further publicity, which would not only tarnish the image of the students but also aggravate the situation. In the counter the respondents have also mentioned about the incident which took place in 1981 involving the petitioner. On the basis of which it is stated that the petitioner is in the habit of misbehaving with girl students and as such the matter was decided confidentially. It is also stated that in the year 1981 a similar complaint was lodged by one girl student, due to which there was unrest in the university leading to the closure of the University for few days. Therefore, it is stated that, the petitioner is a man of disrepute and he deserves for the punishment imposed by the Executive Council.
10. The matter certainly is delicate one. The happening in the University if brought to light, there is every likelihood of the parents of students reacting adversely, notwithstanding the fact whether there is any truth or otherwise. As far as the 1981 incident is concerned, I am informed that the matter had been entrusted to a commissioner headed by a retired Judge of this Court. On framing necessary charges against the petitioner, it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved since no evidence is forthcoming against the petitioner. In order to come out of this sluggish situation, it is stated on behalf of the respondent-University that the student who had complained against the petitioner in 1981 had by that time left the University and, therefore, it was very difficult for the University to procure the presence of the complainant therein and the witnesses.
11. As far as the present incident is concerned, it is stated that the three members who had enquired in this matter, had informed the petitioner the charges levelled against him and the petitioner had also discussed the matter with the three members and also the second respondent-Vice Chancellor. It is further stated that a copy of the minutes dated 30.1.1988 of the Executive Council was communicated to the petitioner on 1.2.1988 giving reasonable time for filing his representation. It is, in this context, canvassed on behalf of the respondents that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the fact of the petitioner writing letters to the second respondent-Vice Chancellor and the father of Miss Rita Ghosh, itself is sufficient to nullify the stand taken by the petitioner that he was not informed of the charges levelled against him. It is, therefore, stated that the respondents have taken necessary steps and there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. In support of the stand taken by then respondents that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in the circumstances of the case, Mr. V. Rajagopal Reddy, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, places reliance on the following decisions :-
Bihar S. E. Board v. Subhas Chandra .
Board of H. S. & I.E. U. P. v. Chittra .
Hira Nath v. Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi .
Triambak Pati v. B. H. S. & I. Edn., Allahabad, .
Mukund Madhav v. Agra University, .
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, .
Writ Appeal No. 622 of 1991 dated 30.4.1992 W. A, No. 622 of 1991, date 30.4.1992.
12. On the contrary Mr. R. Venugopal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Vijayanandan Reddy appearing for the petitioner, attacks the impugned proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He states that no doubt the matter is a very delicate, yet the petitioner is entitled to know the charges framed against him, which would enable him to give proper explanation. In support of his stand he places reliance on the decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. G. Karunakar .
13. The respondent-University is a Central University. Through this institution one’s career is motivated. In their endeavour to come up in life the students are to be guided by Professors. The relationship between the teacher and the taught is a matter of confidence which cannot be narrated in words. Therefore, what is expected of is faith in a teacher by the students and love and affection from the teacher to the students. In the instant case, unfortunately, some allegations have been made against the petitioner who is one of the senior Professors of the first respondent-University, by one Miss Rita Ghosh, which reflects on the personality and character of the petitioner. Miss Rita Ghosh has alleged that the petitioner has been misbehaving with her. Basing on the complaint, the second respondent-Vice Chancellor sought certain particulars from the petitioner through the three members. Though the petitioner was not made known about the full details of the charges, yet the petitioner sent his regrets to the second respondent-Vice Chancellor as well as the father of Miss Rita Ghosh. The amount which was borrowed by the petitioner from the said Miss Rita Ghosh had also been returned to her father. The father of Miss Rita Ghosh also wrote a letter to the respondents to drop the matter since he never wanted an enquiry to be held in this matter. When the complainant desired change of teacher, the petitioner never raised any objection.
14. In a case of nature whether the petitioner is entitled to know the charges levelled against him is a thousand dollars question. The argument, basing reliance on the decisions cited supra, by the Counsel for the respondents, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no violation of principles of natural justice, I am afraid, such a view is not available in this case. There are no hard and fast rules to say that non-supply of a particular material would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. What is required is a fair play, so that the affected party may get reasonable opportunity to explain his or her case. The endeavour in this case seems to be that on the basis of complaint against the petitioner, if a regular enquiry is held there will be wide publicity, which may adversely tarnish the future of the complainant. It is equally to bear in mind that the petitioner herein is a Professor, against whom his student has made certain allegations. If the allegations are not made known to him it would be amounting to denial of reasonable opportunity, therefore, any order passed imposing punishment is violative of the principles of natural justice. In this case no charges have been framed. It is the three members who invited the petitioner to have a discussion, informed the petitioner about the mind of the second respondent Vice Chancellor.
15. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is denial of assigning any girl students of M. Phil., and Ph. D., non-allotment of administrative work, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and warning of serious consequences if any future instance of misconduct if reported against the petitioner.
16. In this context, I consider it appropriate to refer to the sworn affidavit of Dr. Marathe, one of the Professors of the University, who along with two others discussed the issue with the petitioner as per the wishes of the second respondent-Vice Chancellor. In his affidavit Mr. Marathe states that it was not intended to punish the petitioner nor any Committee was constituted to enquire into this episode. It is only on the oral advise of the second respondent-Vice Chancellor requesting them to know the mind of the petitioner, they discussed the matter with the petitioner. It is also stated in the affidavit that they had no knowledge or idea as to the furnishing the gist of the complaint of Miss Rita Ghosh. The affidavit also discloses that the University Rules provide a procedure for holding an official enquiry while framing charges.
17. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well the respondents and the third party affidavit of Dr. Marathe discloses that the University, in its anxiety to settle the matter within the four corners, has failed to observe the requirement of principles of natural justice. As I said, the requirement of principles of natural justice though differ from case to case and no standards could be, in order to enable the petitioner, to explain his stand, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have been given a copy of the complaint or atleast the gist of the complaint. Noting has been placed before me to show that charges were framed against the petitioner and he was made known of the charges. Mere communication of imposition of penalty, in my view, cannot be held to be as providing of an opportunity to the petitioner. The argument that intimation about the imposition of penalty to the petitioner is sufficient and would amount to compliance of principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted. After all, ‘fair play’ needs that the person who is to be effected, should know the charges framed against him before imposing penalty. It is for the concerned authorities either to reject or accept the explanation and impose the penalty in whatever manner they think.
18. This Court may have sympathy with the girl student, but the sympathy of this Court itself cannot be a ground for denying the petitioner an opportunity of knowing the charges. An elaborate enquiry may not, in the circumstances be advisable as it may affect the future of the complainant. Even if an enquiry is ordered, probably, there may not be any evidence forthcoming as the complainant has left the institution. The fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to know the contents of the complaint, basing on which the respondents issued the impugned proceedings, so that he could have explained his case. The Counsel representing the respondents contended that an appeal to the appropriate authority is provided as per the regulations of the University and, therefore, the petitioner without availing that opportunity has approached this Court and as such the writ is not maintainable.
19 I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission. Providing an appeal would not in any way absolve the respondents from complying with the requirement of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner had rightly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking redressal of his grievance.
20 The other submission is that the petitioner had filed the writ petition belatedly. It is brought to my notice by the Counsel for the petitioner that at the first instance the petitioner had filed a write petition in the Delhi High Court, since he way staying in Delhi. However, the Delhi High Court returned the writ petition giving an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as the Delhi High Court felt that the cause of action arose at Hyderabad. In view of this, I am not persuaded to accept that there is delay in filing the write petition.
21. In the ligh of the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was denied of the opportunity to put forth his case, due to non-supply of the complaint. Therefore, failure to comply with the requirement would amount to violation of ‘Principles of Natural Justice’. Any proceedings issued imposing punishment, denying opportunity to a party affected, cannot sustain and accordingly the impugned proceedings, in my view, have to necessarily go.
22. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 1.2.1988 in UH/Estt-I/88/111, are quashed. Consequently the writ petition is allowed.
23. However, the respondent-University, if so advised, may follow the procedure and pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. No costs.