{"id":99797,"date":"2009-05-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-13T12:36:09","modified_gmt":"2017-05-13T07:06:09","slug":"professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Siddharth Mridul<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+       LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008 &\n        C.M.APPL.Nos.6984, 16445\/2008, 2846\/2009,\n        3091\/2009\n\n                                Reserved on    : 6th April, 2009\n\n                                Date of Decision: 21st May, 2009\n\n        PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA                   ..... Appellant\n\n                          Through : Mr.R.Venkataraman,\n                                    Sr.Advocate with Mr.Aljo\n                                    K.Joseph and Mrs. Neela\n                                    Gokhale, Advocates.\n\n                          versus\n\n\n\n        THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.           ..... Respondents\n\n                          Through : Mr. V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate with\n                                    Mr.Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal\n                                    and Mr.Amar Jyoti Srivastava,\n                                    Advocates for R-1 & R-2.\n\n                                     Ms.Maneesha with Mr.Amit\n                                     Bansal, Advocates for R-3.\n\n%       CORAM:\n\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B.LOKUR\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL\n\n\n        1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to\n              see the judgment?                         Yes.\n\n        2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?      Yes.\n\n        3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the\n              Digest?                                   Yes.\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by<\/p>\n
the Appellant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment<\/p>\n
and order dated 11th April, 2008 passed by the learned Single<\/p>\n
    [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                      [Page 1 of 26]
\n Bench in Writ Petition No.16000\/2006 whereby the writ petition<\/p>\n
filed by the Petitioner\/Appellant herein was dismissed on the<\/p>\n
ground that the various communications, grievances and pleas<\/p>\n
taken by the Petitioner could well be adjudicated before the<\/p>\n
Inquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   The factual matrix as found by the learned Single Bench<\/p>\n
was as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       a.   The University of Delhi, under the auspices of<\/p>\n
            the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India,<\/p>\n
            decided to set up Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Biomedical<\/p>\n
            Research Centre (ACBR).<\/p>\n
       b.   The Appellant, who holds the substantive post of<\/p>\n
            Professor in the Department of Chemistry,<\/p>\n
            University    of    Delhi,   was    made   the    Acting<\/p>\n
            Director of ACBR by way of an additional charge<\/p>\n
            which   was        communicated      to   him    by   the<\/p>\n
            Assistant Registrar (E-NT) of the University vide<\/p>\n
            letter dated 30th May, 1995.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       c.   The Appellant discharged both his substantive<\/p>\n
            as well as additional duties till 20th September,<\/p>\n
            1999 on which date he left on deputation to join<\/p>\n
            his    new    posting        as    Vice-chancellor     of<\/p>\n
            Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       d.   In pursuance thereof, the Registrar, University<\/p>\n
            of Delhi on 20th September, 1999, notified the<\/p>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                             [Page 2 of 26]
\n           appointment of Professor Vani Brahmachari as<\/p>\n
          Acting Director of ACBR during the leave period<\/p>\n
          of the Appellant. It was, however, resolved that<\/p>\n
          the   Appellant    would     continue     to     provide<\/p>\n
          academic leadership to ACBR.\n<\/p>\n
\n     e.   Although the deputation period of the Appellant<\/p>\n
          was scheduled to expire on 31st July, 2005, he<\/p>\n
          was removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor,<\/p>\n
          Bundelkhand         University,         Jhansi       on<\/p>\n
          16th July, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\n     f.   The Appellant on 18th July, 2005, resumed the<\/p>\n
          duties as professor, Department of Chemistry,<\/p>\n
          University of Delhi.     The Deputy Registrar of<\/p>\n
          ACBR, on the same date, issued a notification to<\/p>\n
          the effect that the Appellant had fully resumed<\/p>\n
          his charge as Director of ACBR.\n<\/p>\n
\n     g.   Although the University of Delhi allowed the<\/p>\n
          Appellant to resume his substantive duties as<\/p>\n
          Professor in the Department of Chemistry, he<\/p>\n
          was not allowed to join his duties as Acting<\/p>\n
          Director, ACBR.\n<\/p>\n
\n     h.   The Executive Council of the University of Delhi,<\/p>\n
          on 17th October, 2005, passed the following<\/p>\n
          three resolutions against the Petitioner:<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                           [Page 3 of 26]\n<\/p>\n
              1.      Professor Ramesh Chandra be not<\/p>\n
                     allowed to hold any administrative<\/p>\n
                     position        in      Delhi      University<\/p>\n
                     henceforth.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             2.      A show cause notice be issued to<\/p>\n
                     Professor Ramesh Chandra for                  –\n<\/p>\n
                     (a) suppressing information with<\/p>\n
                     regard to allegations on account of<\/p>\n
                     which he was removed from the<\/p>\n
                     post       of         Vice-chancellor        of<\/p>\n
                     Bundelkhand            University    at    the<\/p>\n
                     time of his premature return to<\/p>\n
                     Delhi                University,           and<\/p>\n
                     (b) unauthorisedly assuming the<\/p>\n
                     office          of       the        Director,<\/p>\n
                     Dr.B.R.Ambedkar                Centre       for<\/p>\n
                     Biomedical             Research,          Delhi<\/p>\n
                     University for the period from 18th<\/p>\n
                     July, 2005 to 24th July, 2005 in<\/p>\n
                     contravention           of   the    statutory<\/p>\n
                     provisions of the University; and<\/p>\n
             3.      The decision, if any, taken by at<\/p>\n
                     the instance of Professor Ramesh<\/p>\n
                     Chandra,         while       unauthorisedly<\/p>\n
                     occupying the post of the Director,<\/p>\n
                     Dr.B.R.Ambedkar                Centre       for<\/p>\n
                     Biomedical               Research,          or<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                                   [Page 4 of 26]
\n                          thereafter, be treated as null and<\/p>\n
                         void.\n<\/p>\n
3.      Aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Council dated<\/p>\n
17th   October,   2005,     the     Appellant       filed     a   writ    petition<\/p>\n
No.16000\/2006 seeking the following relief:<\/p>\n
           (a)    Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other<\/p>\n
                  writ    or     direction    in   the      nature   of<\/p>\n
                  Certiorari       quashing        the      resolutions<\/p>\n
                  dated 17th October, 2005 passed by the<\/p>\n
                  Executive Council, University of Delhi.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n           (b)    Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other\n\n                  writ    or     direction    in    the     nature   of\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  Certiorari quashing all the acts of the<\/p>\n
                  University done in pursuance of the<\/p>\n
                  resolutions dated 17th October, 2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (c)    Issue a writ of mandamus or any other<\/p>\n
                  writ, order or direction directing the<\/p>\n
                  Respondent-University to continue to<\/p>\n
                  implement         its      own     order        dated<\/p>\n
                  30th May, 1995 allowing the Appellant to<\/p>\n
                  continue to function as Director.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.     Vide the impugned order the learned Single Judge found<\/p>\n
that the Appellant was not a regular appointee to the post of<\/p>\n
Acting Director of ACBR as could be inferred from the letter<\/p>\n
dated 30th May, 1995 which categorically stipulated that the<\/p>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                                     [Page 5 of 26]
\n Appellant would continue to be Acting Director of ACBR, till the<\/p>\n
time a regular appointment was made. It was further found that<\/p>\n
it was explicit from the letter dated 30th May, 1995 that the<\/p>\n
Appellant\u201fs appointment to the post of Acting Director, ACBR<\/p>\n
was made by the Vice-chancellor of the University of Delhi.<\/p>\n
5.   The learned Single Judge also found that the Appellant in<\/p>\n
pursuance of his deputation as Vice-chancellor, Bundelkhand<\/p>\n
University, Jhansi, was replaced by Professor Vani Brahmachari<\/p>\n
by   the    University     of   Delhi   vide   notification   dated   20th<\/p>\n
September, 1999.           The learned Single Judge held that the<\/p>\n
notification dated 20th September, 1999 clearly stipulates that<\/p>\n
the Appellant had been replaced by Professor Vani Brahmachari<\/p>\n
and that he was to continue providing academic leadership to<\/p>\n
ACBR       pursuant   to    his   appointment     as   Vice   Chancellor,<\/p>\n
Bundelkhand Univeristy, Jhansi.            The learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
moreover found that the Appellant had not brought on record a<\/p>\n
single document notified by the University of Delhi to the effect<\/p>\n
that Professor Vani Brahmachari was to continue Acting as<\/p>\n
Director of ACBR only until the expiry of the deputation period<\/p>\n
of the Appellant.     The learned Single Judge further found that<\/p>\n
the catena of resolutions, purportedly, passed by the governing<\/p>\n
body of ACBR stipulating that the Appellant would continue<\/p>\n
holding the post of Acting Director ACBR whilst simultaneously<\/p>\n
holding the post of Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University,<\/p>\n
Jhansi, prima facie appeared to be of doubtful veracity inasmuch<\/p>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                            [Page 6 of 26]
\n as   their   existence   had   been     out-rightly    denied      by        the<\/p>\n
Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.     The learned Single Judge also noted that pursuant to the<\/p>\n
Appellant\u201fs repatriation from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, a<\/p>\n
notification dated 18th July, 2005, was issued by the Deputy<\/p>\n
Registrar of ACBR to the effect that the Appellant had fully<\/p>\n
resumed charge as Acting Director of ACBR, which resolution<\/p>\n
was consequently withdrawn on 25th July, 2005, pursuant to the<\/p>\n
letter dated 19th July, 2005 addressed by the Registrar,<\/p>\n
University of Delhi to the Deputy Registrar ACBR.            It was the<\/p>\n
finding of the learned Single Judge that prima facie the following<\/p>\n
consequences were deducible from the withdrawal of the<\/p>\n
notification dated 18th July, 2005:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             (a)   Firstly, and perhaps, most importantly, any<\/p>\n
             appointment to the post of Director, ACBR and<\/p>\n
             even termination thereof, was to be made only on<\/p>\n
             the behest of the University of Delhi and not the<\/p>\n
             Governing Body of the ACBR;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (b)    Secondly, the decision of the Registrar,<\/p>\n
             University of Delhi to revoke the notification dated<\/p>\n
             18th July, 2005 clarified that the University of<\/p>\n
             Delhi, vide letter dated 20th September, 1999 had<\/p>\n
             not in fact contemplated the Appellant to continue<\/p>\n
             holding the charge of Acting Director of ACBR<\/p>\n
             during   his   tenure      as   Vice     Chancellor        of<\/p>\n
             Bundelkhand University, Jhansi;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                           [Page 7 of 26]\n<\/p>\n
            (c)    Thirdly,   the   resolutions     issued   by      the<\/p>\n
           Governing Body stipulating that the Petitioner was<\/p>\n
           to continue as Director of ACBR, if any, were<\/p>\n
           dehors the notification dated 25 th July, 2005,<\/p>\n
           whereby the Governing Body revoked its earlier<\/p>\n
           notification   dated    18th   July,   2005,   since     the<\/p>\n
           Governing Body obviously could not have issued<\/p>\n
           the said resolutions once having revoked its<\/p>\n
           notification dated 18th July, 2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           (d)   Fourthly, the Appellant became aware of the<\/p>\n
           Respondents\u201f decision of not allowing him to<\/p>\n
           continue as Acting Director way back on 25th July,<\/p>\n
           2005 but he did not bring on record a single<\/p>\n
           document to explain why he did not confront the<\/p>\n
           University at that time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   The learned Single Judge further held that the submissions<\/p>\n
of the petitioner imputing mala fides to the Respondents, prima<\/p>\n
facie, held no water. The learned Single Judge observed that it is<\/p>\n
trite philosophy that mala fides are easy to allege but difficult to<\/p>\n
prove and that the Appellant had not brought on record a Single<\/p>\n
document which would, prima facie, give reason for the Court to<\/p>\n
believe that the resolutions dated 17th October, 2005 were<\/p>\n
upshot of the mala fide intention on the part of the Respondents.<\/p>\n
8.   The learned Single Judge finally observed that it was well<\/p>\n
settled by a catena of the decisions of the Apex Court that<\/p>\n
ordinarily no writ could be entertained against a charge-sheet or<\/p>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                             [Page 8 of 26]
\n show cause notice since a mere charge-sheet or show cause<\/p>\n
notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does<\/p>\n
not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any<\/p>\n
party, unless the same is issued by a person having no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to do so. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found<\/p>\n
no grounds to interfere with the writ petition filed by the<\/p>\n
Appellant and the same was accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
9.    Mr. R.Venkatramani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Appellant assailed the order of the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge on the ground that the impugned decision failed to<\/p>\n
appreciate that the charges leveled against the Appellant did not<\/p>\n
constitute    a   misconduct.     The   learned   Senior   Counsel<\/p>\n
consequently urged that the actions of the Appellant were based<\/p>\n
on the General Body Resolutions of the ACBR and were thus free<\/p>\n
from blame.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.    It was next argued that since the General Body Resolutions<\/p>\n
had not been set aside by the Executive Council of the Delhi<\/p>\n
University, they could not be disregarded.<\/p>\n
11.      Lastly, it was argued that the decision of the Allahabad<\/p>\n
High Court in favour of the Appellant had not been considered.<\/p>\n
12.   Per contra, it was argued by Mr. V.P.Singh, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Delhi University that the<\/p>\n
power to appoint a        Director to ACBR was vested in the<\/p>\n
Executive Council of the Delhi University under Ordinance XX<\/p>\n
Clause 6, Sub-clause 4 of the Delhi University Act and that the<\/p>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                      [Page 9 of 26]
\n Appellant had been appointed as Acting Director by the Vice<\/p>\n
Chancellor of the Delhi University.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   It was next urged on behalf of the Respondents that the<\/p>\n
Appellant had no lien, as the post of Director, ACBR, was only an<\/p>\n
Acting assignment. It was also urged that when the Appellant<\/p>\n
had proceeded to Bundelkhand University as Vice Chancellor,<\/p>\n
Professor Vani Brahmachari had been appointed as Acting<\/p>\n
Director vide communication dated 20th September, 1999 and<\/p>\n
later on Daman Saluja had been appointed as Acting Director<\/p>\n
with effect from 2nd January, 2006 to replace Vani Brahmachari,<\/p>\n
and that the Appellant had not challenged the said appointments<\/p>\n
made in his stead.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.    Further, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondents<\/p>\n
that no jurisdictional error had been demonstrated while seeking<\/p>\n
quashing of the resolution dated 17th October, 2005.<\/p>\n
15.   It was lastly urged on behalf of the Respondent-University<\/p>\n
that the Appellant had been served with a memorandum for<\/p>\n
suppressing the reasons for his premature removal as Vice<\/p>\n
Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and that the said<\/p>\n
action amounted to misconduct punishable under Ordinance XI,<\/p>\n
Clause VI of the Delhi University Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. Before adverting to the rival submissions made on behalf of<\/p>\n
the parties it is necessary to extract the letters dated 30th May,<\/p>\n
1995 and 20th September, 1999 whereby the Appellant had been<\/p>\n
appointed as Acting Director of ACBR, and had been replaced by<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                     [Page 10 of 26]
\n Professor Vani Brahmachari on his proceeding on deputation as<\/p>\n
Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University respectively.<\/p>\n
                                        “No.Estab.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  III\/BRAC\/95\/1936
\n                                        Delhi, the 30th May, 1995.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dr.Ramesh Chandra,
\nResearch Scientist (Professor),
\nDepartment of Chemistry,
\nUniversity of Delhi,
\nDelhi – 110 007<\/p>\n
Dear Sir,<\/p>\n
     I am directed to inform you that the Vice Chancellor has
\nbeen pleased to decide that you will act as the Director of
\nDr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Bio-medical Research, University of
\nDelhi with immediate effect till regular appointment of a
\nDirector is made by the University.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  Yours faithfully,<\/p>\n
                                              Assistant   Registrar
\n                                             (E-NT)<\/p>\n
Copy for information to:\n<\/p>\n
  1. The Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Delhi, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
  2. The Chairman, Board of Research Studies, Faculty of
\n     Science, University of Delhi, Delhi-7.\n<\/p>\n
  3. The Head of the Department of Chemistry, University of
\n     Delhi, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
  4. The Assistant Registrar, A\/CS-I), University of Delhi, Delhi.<\/p>\n
     Assistant Registrar (E-NT)<\/p>\n
                                  ******<\/p>\n
                                  “No.Estab.(T)\/V\/99\/ACCR\/35652<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                      [Page 11 of 26]
\n                                       Delhi,the 20th September, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
                            NOTIFICATION<\/p>\n
           The Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to appoint
\nProf.Vani Brahmachari as officiating Director (Hony.) of the
\nDr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Bio-Medical Research during leave
\nperiod of Prof.Ramesh Chandra, who has joined as Vice-
\nChancellor of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. He will however
\ncontinue to provide academic Leadership.<\/p>\n
                                                         (K.K.PANDA)
\n                                                           REGISTRAR<\/p>\n
                                            Prof.Vani Brahmachari,
\n                                            Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Centre for
\n                                            Biomedical Research,
\n                                            University of Delhi,
\n                                            DELHI – 110 007.\n<\/p>\n
\n      Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
      1.   The Director, University of Delhi, Delhi – 7.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The Finance Officer, University of Delhi, Delhi -7.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The Joint Finance Officer, University of Delhi, Delhi -7.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The Joint Registrar, University of Delhi, Delhi -7.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   The Director, B.R.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical
\n           Research, University of Delhi, Delhi – 7.<\/p>\n
17.        Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to<\/p>\n
consider the referred portions of the judicial pronouncements<\/p>\n
relied upon by the parties in support of their respective<\/p>\n
contentions.\n<\/p>\n
18.        Learned    counsel   for   the    Appellant   relied    on      the<\/p>\n
following judgments:\n<\/p>\n
             1.      In A.L.Kalra vs. Project and Equipment<\/p>\n
             Corporation of India Ltd<\/a> (1984) 3 SCC 316 the<\/p>\n
             Supreme Court observed that:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     “What in a given context would constitute
\n                     conduct unbecoming of a public servant to
\n                     be treated as misconduct would expose a
\n                     grey area not amenable to objective<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                              [Page 12 of 26]
\n                  evaluation. Where misconduct when proved
\n                 entails penal consequences, it is obligatory
\n                 on the employer to specify and if necessary
\n                 define it with precision and accuracy so that
\n                 any ex post facto interpretation of some
\n                 incident may not be camouflaged as
\n                 misconduct.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2.   In UOI vs. J.Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286, the<\/p>\n
          Supreme Court observed as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “In industrial jurisprudence amongst
\n                  others, habitual or gross negligence
\n                  constitute misconduct but in Utkal
\n                  Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss
\n                  Shanti Patnaik,<\/a> (1966) 2 SCR 434, in
\n                  the absence of standing orders
\n                  governing the employee’s undertaking,
\n                  unsatisfactory        work was treated
\n                  as misconduct in the context of
\n                  discharge being assailed as punitive. In
\n                  S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India,<\/a>
\n                  (1967) 2 SCR 566,       the manner in
\n                  which a member of the service
\n                  discharged his quasi judicial function
\n                  disclosing abuse of power was treated
\n                  as constituting misconduct for initiating
\n                  disciplinary proceedings. A single act of
\n                  omission or error of judgment would
\n                  ordinarily not constitute misconduct
\n                  though if such error or omission results
\n                  in serious or atrocious consequences
\n                  the same may amount to misconduct as
\n                  was held by this Court in P.H. Kalyani
\n                  v. Air France, Calcutta,<\/a> (1964) 2 SCR
\n                  104, wherein it was found that the two
\n                  mistakes committed by the employee
\n                  while checking the load-sheets and
\n                  balance charts would involve possible
\n                  accident to the aircraft and possible
\n                  loss of human life and, therefore, the
\n                  negligence in work in the context of
\n                  serious consequences was treated as
\n                  misconduct. It is, however, difficult to
\n                  believe that lack of efficiency or
\n                  attainment of highest standards in
\n                  discharge of duty attached to public
\n                  office would ipso facto constitute
\n                  misconduct. There may be negligence
\n                  in performance of duty and a lapse in
\n                  performance of duty or error of
\n                  judgment in evaluating the developing<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                     [Page 13 of 26]
\n                   situation   may     be    negligence   in
\n                  discharge of duty but would not
\n                  constitute    misconduct     unless   the
\n                  consequences directly attributable to
\n                  negligence would be such as to be
\n                  irreparable or the resultant damage
\n                  would be so heavy that the degree of
\n                  culpability would be very high. An error
\n                  can be indicative of negligence and the
\n                  degree of culpability may indicate the
\n                  grossness      of     the     negligence.
\n                  Carelessness can often be productive of
\n                  more harm than deliberate wickedness
\n                  or malevolence. Leaving aside the
\n                  classic example of the sentry who
\n                  sleeps at his post and allows the enemy
\n                  to slip through, there are other more
\n                  familiar instances of which a railway
\n                  cabinman signals in a train on the same
\n                  track where there is a stationary train
\n                  causing head-on collision; a nurse
\n                  giving intravenous injection which
\n                  ought to be given intramuscular
\n                  causing instantaneous death; a pilot
\n                  overlooking an instrument showing
\n                  snag in engine and the aircraft crashes
\n                  causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced
\n                  sympathy can be a great evil [see
\n                  Navinchandra Shakerchand Shah v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Manager,         Ahmedabad        Co-op.\n                  Department       Stores  Ltd.      (1978)\n<\/pre>\n
                  19 G.L.R. 108 at 120]. But in any case,
\n                  failure to attain the highest standard of
\n                  efficiency in performance of duty
\n                  permitting an inference of negligence
\n                  would not constitute misconduct nor for
\n                  the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct
\n                  Rules as would indicate lack of devotion
\n                  to duty.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3. In Pankaj Bhargav vs. Mohinder Nath<\/a> (1991)<\/p>\n
          1 SCC 556, the Supreme Court stated that:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “Suffice it to say that in a collateral
\n                   challenge the exercise is not the
\n                   invalidation of a decision, but only to
\n                   ascertain whether the decision
\n                   \u201eexists\u201f in law at all and to rely upon
\n                   incidents and effect of its \u201enon-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   existence\u201f. The authority of decided
\n                   cases is to the effect that the
\n                   permission      granted     must     be<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                         [Page 14 of 26]
\n                    presumed to be valid till set aside.
\n                   Doctrine of collateral challenge will
\n                   not apply to a decision which is valid
\n                   ex-hypothesi and which has some
\n                   presumptive existence, validity and
\n                   effect in law. Such a decision can be
\n                   invalidated by the right person in
\n                   right proceedings brought at the
\n                   right time. It is only a nullity
\n                   stemming from lack of inherent
\n                   jurisdiction or a proceeding that
\n                   wears the brand of invalidity on its
\n                   forehead that might afford a defence
\n                   even against enforcement.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          4.   In Gokaraju Rangaraju vs.         State of Andhra<\/p>\n
          Pradesh AIR<\/a> (1981) S.C. 1473, the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
          referred to:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Black on judgments where it is said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “A person may be entitled to his
\n                    designation although he is not a
\n                    true and rightful incumbent of the
\n                    office, yet he is no mere usurper but
\n                    holds it under colour of lawful
\n                    authority. And there can be no
\n                    question that judgments rendered
\n                    and other acts performed by such a
\n                    person who is ineligible to a
\n                    judgeship but who has nevertheless
\n                    been duly appointed, and who
\n                    exercises the power and duties of
\n                    the office is a de facto judge, and his
\n                    acts are valid until he is properly
\n                    removed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          5.    In 69 L.Ed.1011, United States vs. Elmo<\/p>\n
          R.Royer it was observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “To constitute an office de-facto it
\n                    was not a necessary pre-requisite
\n                    that there should have been an
\n                    attempted exercise of competent or
\n                    prima facie power of appointment or
\n                    election.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                          [Page 15 of 26]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         6.       In State of Punjab vs.    V.K.Khanna & Ors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             AIR (2001) SCC 343, the Supreme Court said:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “…33.      While   it   is  true   that
\n                   justifiability of the charges at this
\n                   stage of initiating a disciplinary
\n                   proceeding cannot possibly be delved
\n                   into by any Court pending inquiry but
\n                   it is equally well settled that in the
\n                   event there is an element of malice or
\n                   malafide, motive involved in the
\n                   matter of issue of a charge-sheet or
\n                   the concerned authority is so biased
\n                   that the inquiry would be a mere
\n                   farcical show and the conclusions are
\n                   well known then and in that event law
\n                   Courts are otherwise justified in
\n                   interfering at the earliest stage so as
\n                   to    avoid    the    harassment    and
\n                   humiliation of a public official. It is
\n                   not a question of shielding any
\n                   misdeed that the Court would be
\n                   anxious, it is the due process of law
\n                   which should permeate in the society
\n                   and in the event of there being any
\n                   affectation of such process of law that
\n                   law Courts ought to rise up to the
\n                   occasion and the High Court in the
\n                   contextual facts has delved into the
\n                   issue on that score. On the basis of
\n                   the findings no exception can be taken
\n                   and that has been the precise reason
\n                   as to why this Court dealt with the
\n                   issue in so great a detail so as to
\n                   examine the judicial propriety at this
\n                   stage of the proceedings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   34.      The High Court while delving
\n                   into the issue went into the factum of
\n                   announcement of the Chief Minister in
\n                   regard to appointment of an Inquiry
\n                   Officer to substantiate the frame of
\n                   mind of the authorities and thus
\n                   depicting bias – What bias means has
\n                   already been dealt with by us earlier
\n                   in this judgment, as such it does not
\n                   require any further dilation but the
\n                   factum of announcement has been
\n                   taken note of as an illustration to a
\n                   mindset viz.: the inquiry shall proceed
\n                   irrespective of the reply – Is it an
\n                   indication of a free and fair attitude<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                    [Page 16 of 26]
\n                       towards the concerned officer? The
\n                      answer cannot possibly be in the
\n                      affirmative. It is well settled in Service
\n                      Jurisprudence that the concerned
\n                      authority has to apply its mind upon
\n                      receipt of reply to the charge-sheet or
\n                      show-cause as the case may be as to
\n                      whether a further inquiry is called for.
\n                      In the event upon deliberations and
\n                      due considerations it is in the
\n                      affirmative – the inquiry follows but
\n                      not otherwise it is this part of Service
\n                      Jurisprudence on which reliance was
\n                      placed by Mr.Subramaniam and on
\n                      that score, strongly criticized the
\n                      conduct of the respondents here and
\n                      accused them of being biased. We do
\n                      find some justification in such a
\n                      criticism upon consideration of the
\n                      materials on record.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        7.       In     Delhi     Development         Authority        vs.<\/p>\n
             H.C.Khurana,<\/a> 1993 (2) SLR, 509 the Supreme<\/p>\n
             Court stated:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      “the question now, is: what is the
\n                      stage, when it can be said, that \u201ea
\n                      decision has been taken to initiate
\n                      disciplinary proceedings\u201f? We have
\n                      no doubt that the decision to initiate
\n                      disciplinary proceedings cannot be
\n                      subsequent to the issuance of a
\n                      charge-sheet, since issue of the
\n                      charge-sheet is a consequence of the
\n                      decision     to    initiate   disciplinary
\n                      proceedings.      Framing the charge-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      sheet, is the first step taken for
\n                      holding     the     inquiry     into   the
\n                      allegations, on the decision taken to
\n                      initiate disciplinary proceedings. The
\n                      charge-sheet is framed on the basis
\n                      of the allegations made against the
\n                      Government Servant; the charge-
\n                      sheet is then served to him to enable
\n                      him to give his explanation; if the
\n                      explanation      is    satisfactory,   the
\n                      proceedings are closed, otherwise,
\n                      the enquiry is held into the charges;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      if the charges are not proved, the
\n                      proceedings are closed and the<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                          [Page 17 of 26]
\n                          Government Servant exonerated; but
\n                         if the charges are proved, the penalty
\n                         follows.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19.     Mr.V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate, relied on            the    following<\/p>\n
decisions:\n<\/p>\n
             1. In M.V. Janardhan Reddy vs. Vijaya Bank and<\/p>\n
                  Ors.<\/a>    (2008) 7 SCC 738, where the Supreme<\/p>\n
                  Court observed that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         “It is true that the Recovery Officer
\n                         confirmed the sale in favour of the
\n                         appellant. But as we have already
\n                         noted, in view of the condition
\n                         imposed by the Company Court, the
\n                         Recovery Officer did not have the
\n                         power to confirm sale.      An order
\n                         passed by an officer having no
\n                         authority of law has no effect. It
\n                         neither creates any right in favour of
\n                         a party for whom such order is made
\n                         nor imposes any obligation on the
\n                         opposite party against whom it was
\n                         passed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.   In     S.S.   &   Company     vs.   Orissa    Mining<\/p>\n
                  Corporation Ltd.<\/a>         (2008) 5 SCC 772, the<\/p>\n
                  Supreme Court stated that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         “33.    We      are   in     complete
\n                         agreement with the view taken by the
\n                         High Court. As a matter of fact, for
\n                         rejecting the allegation that the
\n                         impugned         amendment        was
\n                         introduced in Clause 8(i) of the NIT
\n                         at the instance of the Managing
\n                         Director, without obtaining prior
\n                         approval of the Board of Directors we
\n                         need not even go to the rebuttal-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         affidavit filed by the Addl. General
\n                         Manager. The Board of Directors is
\n                         the apex policy-making body. It may
\n                         lay down broad guidelines but it is
\n                         impossible to conceive that all the
\n                         NITs (over a hundred in number)
\n                         issued by the Corporation for<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                           [Page 18 of 26]
\n                     different purposes every year should
\n                    come before it for consideration and
\n                    approval of their respective clauses
\n                    or any amendment proposed in any
\n                    clause in any of the NITs. (We fail to
\n                    see any good reason why the matter
\n                    should not be finalized by the
\n                    Managing Director or, depending
\n                    upon the nature of the contract, even
\n                    at some lower level).<\/p>\n
\n\n                   34.      The normal work of any\n                   organization        or       government\n                   department      would     be    seriously\n<\/pre>\n
                   hampered if every tendering party
\n                   would claim the right to raise
\n                   objection that one or the other clause
\n                   in a NIT or any amendment
\n                   introduced in any of its clauses did not
\n                   have the prior sanction of the highest
\n                   policy-making        body      of     the
\n                   organization. In this case particularly
\n                   there is no occasion to go into that
\n                   question as there is neither any
\n                   material to suggest, even remotely,
\n                   that the Managing Director harboured
\n                   any malice against the appellant nor is
\n                   the Managing Director made a party
\n                   to this case in his personal capacity.”\n<\/p>\n
          3. In Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.<\/p>\n
               and others; (1992) Supp (1) SCC 524 the<\/p>\n
               Supreme Court stated that :-\n<\/p>\n
                   “17. We shall now examine what the
\n                   word ‘lien’ means. The word ‘lien’
\n                   originally means “binding” from the
\n                   Latin ligamen. Its lexical meaning is
\n                   “right to retain”. The word ‘lien’ is
\n                   now variously described and used
\n                   under different context such as
\n                   ‘contractual lien’, ‘equitable lien’,
\n                   ‘specific lien’, ‘general lien’, ‘partners
\n                   lien’, etc. In Halsbury’s Laws of
\n                   England, (Fourth Edition, Volume 28
\n                   at page 221, para 502) it is stated :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           “In its primary or legal
\n                           sense “lien” means a right
\n                           at common law in one man
\n                           to retain that which is<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                       [Page 19 of 26]
\n                            rightfully and continuously
\n                           in his possession belonging
\n                           to another until the present
\n                           and accrued claims are
\n                           satisfied.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   18. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,
\n                   (5th Edition, Volume 3 at page 1465)
\n                   the following passage is found :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           “Lien. (1) A lien-(without
\n                           effecting a transference of
\n                           the property in a thing)-is
\n                           the     right    to    retain
\n                           possession of a thing until a
\n                           claim be satisfied; and it is
\n                           either particular or general.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           So, as regards Scotland,
\n                           “lien”    is   defined      as
\n                           including \u201ethe right of
\n                           retention\u201f [Sale of Goods
\n                           Act 1893 (c. 71), S. 62], or it
\n                           “shall mean and include
\n                           right of retention” [Factors
\n                           (Scotland) Act, 1890 (c. 40),
\n                           S.1]; Great Eastern Railway
\n                           Co. v. Lord\u201fs Trustees
\n                           (1909) A.C. 109.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   19. In words and Phrases, Permanent
\n                   Edition, Vol. 25 the definition of word
\n                   ‘lien’ when used to explain the
\n                   equitable lien, is given thus :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         “A ‘lien’ from a legal
\n                         standpoint, embodies the
\n                         idea of a deed or bond, and
\n                         necessarily   implies   that
\n                         there    is  something    in
\n                         existence   to   which     it
\n                         attaches.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   24. A learned Single Judge of the
\n                   Allahabad High Court in M.P. Tewari
\n                   v. Union of India 1974, All LJ 427
\n                   following the dictum laid down in the
\n                   above Paresh Chandra case (1970) 3
\n                   SCC 870 and distinguishing the
\n                   decision of this Court in P.L. Dhingra
\n                   v. Union of India AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 36, has
\n                   observed that “a person can be said to
\n                   acquire a lien on a post only when he
\n                   has been confirmed and made<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                         [Page 20 of 26]
\n                      permanent on that post and not
\n                     earlier”, with which view we are in
\n                     agreement.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.   In the present case, it is seen that the ACBR was set up by<\/p>\n
the University of Delhi. Under the provisions of sub-clause 4 of<\/p>\n
Clause 6 of Ordinance XX of the Delhi University Act, 1922 the<\/p>\n
appointment of the Director of ACBR could only be made by the<\/p>\n
Executive Council. The appointment of the Appellant as Acting<\/p>\n
Director was made by the Vice-Chancellor vide communication<\/p>\n
dated the 30th May, 1995.             Thereafter, when the appellant<\/p>\n
proceeded on       deputation    as Vice-Chancellor,      Bundelkhand<\/p>\n
University, Jhansi, the Vice-chancellor vide communication dated<\/p>\n
20th September, 1999 was pleased to appoint Prof. Vani<\/p>\n
Brahmachari as officiating Director of ACBR in place of the<\/p>\n
Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21.   The     Appellant   has   not    questioned   the   authority      or<\/p>\n
competence of the Vice-Chancellor to do so at any stage.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it does not lie in his mouth now to urge that the<\/p>\n
Governing Body of ACBR had the power or authority to appoint<\/p>\n
or continue him as the Acting Director of the ACBR.                 Even<\/p>\n
otherwise it is seen that vide notification dated 25 th July, 2005,<\/p>\n
the earlier notification dated 18th July, 2005, permitting the<\/p>\n
Appellant to join back as full time Director, was withdrawn by<\/p>\n
the ACBR itself, on a communication in this behalf by the Delhi<\/p>\n
University.    Therefore, the issue whether or not the Appellant<\/p>\n
could continue holding charge as Acting Director of ACBR was to<\/p>\n
be decided by the Executive Council or Vice-Chancellor of the<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                          [Page 21 of 26]
\n University of Delhi and not the Governing Body of the ACBR. It<\/p>\n
is equally clear that the Governing Body of the ACBR could not<\/p>\n
continue the Appellant as Acting Director of ACBR contrary to<\/p>\n
the decision in this behalf of the Delhi University.<\/p>\n
22.   The above cited Ordinance XX makes it evidently clear that<\/p>\n
the Governing Body of the ACBR was to function and manage its<\/p>\n
affairs under the control and supervision of the Executive<\/p>\n
Council of the University of Delhi and not in opposition to it.<\/p>\n
23.   In this view of the matter, we agree with the conclusions<\/p>\n
deduced by the learned Single Judge from the withdrawal of the<\/p>\n
notification dated 18th July, 2005, to the effect that (i) firstly, and<\/p>\n
perhaps most importantly, any appointment to the post of<\/p>\n
Director, ACBR, and even termination thereof, was to be done at<\/p>\n
the instance of the University of Delhi and not the Governing<\/p>\n
Body of ACBR; (ii) secondly, the decision of the Registrar,<\/p>\n
University of Delhi to revoke the notification dated 18 th July,<\/p>\n
2005 clarified that the University of Delhi, vide letter dated<\/p>\n
20th September, 1999, had never contemplated the appellant to<\/p>\n
continue holding the charge of Acting Director of ACBR during<\/p>\n
his tenure as Vice-Chancellor of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi;<\/p>\n
(iii) thirdly, the resolutions issued by the Governing Body, ACBR,<\/p>\n
stipulating that the appellant was to continue as Director of<\/p>\n
ACBR, if any, were de hors the notification dated 25 th July, 2005<\/p>\n
whereby the Governing Body revoked its earlier notification<\/p>\n
dated 18th July, 2005. The Governing Body once having revoked<\/p>\n
its notification dated 18th July, 2005, obviously could not have<\/p>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                        [Page 22 of 26]
\n issued the said Resolutions; and (iv) fourthly, the appellant was<\/p>\n
aware of the Respondents\u201f decision of not allowing him to<\/p>\n
continue     as   Acting   Director,    ACBR   as    far   back      as     on<\/p>\n
25th July, 2005, but he never confronted the University of Delhi<\/p>\n
in this respect at that time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24.      The submissions made by the appellant to the effect that<\/p>\n
there can be no collateral challenge to Governing Body<\/p>\n
Resolutions or that the Governing Body or the Appellant had<\/p>\n
de facto authority to enable the Appellant to continue to function<\/p>\n
as Director, ACBR, hold no water.         The rulings relied upon by<\/p>\n
the appellant in the context of the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
those particular cases, cannot be engrafted on the present case<\/p>\n
in a blanket manner. It is also to be emphasized that it is well<\/p>\n
established that if a statute empowers a specific body to exercise<\/p>\n
power, it must be exercised by that body alone and no other<\/p>\n
body can usurp or exercise that power without the authority of<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25. The appellant has next contended that the decision of the<\/p>\n
Allahabad High Court has not been considered in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment. In this behalf it is observed that it is not the case of<\/p>\n
the Respondents that the conduct of the Appellant needs to be<\/p>\n
enquired into for the purported charges based on which the<\/p>\n
latter      was   prematurely      removed      as     Vice-chancellor,<\/p>\n
Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. The show cause notice issued<\/p>\n
to the Appellant by the Respondent herein is with respect to the<\/p>\n
concealment by the Appellant of the factum of his being removed<\/p>\n
 [LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                             [Page 23 of 26]
\n from the post of Vice-chancellor at the time of seeking to rejoin<\/p>\n
the University of Delhi as Professor in the Department of<\/p>\n
Chemistry.    In this behalf it is relevant to consider the<\/p>\n
communication dated 18th July, 2005 whereby the Appellant<\/p>\n
sought to rejoin his duties with the University of Delhi. In the<\/p>\n
said communication the Appellant wrote that “After completing<\/p>\n
my tenure as the Vice-chancellor, Bundelkhand University,<\/p>\n
Jhansi, for almost six years, I have returned back and hereby<\/p>\n
report my duties as the Professor, Department of Chemistry,<\/p>\n
University of Delhi today i.e. 18th July, 2005 (Forenoon).” What<\/p>\n
the Respondent seeks to inquire into is the conduct of the<\/p>\n
Appellant whereby the latter sought to rejoin his substantive<\/p>\n
post as Professor in the Department of Chemistry, by conveying<\/p>\n
a misleading impression that the latter was joining back after<\/p>\n
completing    his   tenure    as   Vice-chancellor,   Bundelkhand<\/p>\n
University, Jhansi, whilst suppressing the factum of his removal<\/p>\n
from the post on charges of abuse of power before completion of<\/p>\n
his tenure. The decision of the Allahabad High Court absolved<\/p>\n
him of the charges on which the Appellant had been removed<\/p>\n
from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.       By any stretch of the<\/p>\n
expression, the said decision cannot and did not absolve the<\/p>\n
Appellant from the factum of not having disclosed to the<\/p>\n
Respondents at the time of rejoining that the Appellant had been<\/p>\n
removed from the post of Vice-chancellor prematurely and<\/p>\n
thereafter rejoined his substantive post as Professor in the<\/p>\n
Department of Chemistry. Prima facie the concealment by the<\/p>\n
Appellant of the factum of his removal at the time of rejoining<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                     [Page 24 of 26]
\n the Respondent is the issue in the show cause notice and not the<\/p>\n
decision of the Allahabad High Court which is on an entirely<\/p>\n
different footing. Therefore, the decision of the Allahabad High<\/p>\n
Court cannot in any manner be said to completely absolve the<\/p>\n
Appellant from all blame, including from the factum of having<\/p>\n
suppressed his removal upon his premature return from<\/p>\n
Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. Thus this argument on the part<\/p>\n
of the Appellant is untenable and holds no water.<\/p>\n
26.    Lastly, the appellant has assailed the impugned order on<\/p>\n
the ground that it failed to consider that no misconduct had been<\/p>\n
made out against the appellant. In this behalf, it is suffice to say<\/p>\n
that the Memorandum dated 2nd November, 2005 clearly spells<\/p>\n
out the case of the University of Delhi against the Appellant and<\/p>\n
the same is the subject matter of an inquiry pending against the<\/p>\n
petitioner.   However, without prejudicing in any manner the<\/p>\n
conduct of the said inquiry against the appellant, prima facie it<\/p>\n
appears that the University of Delhi does have just grounds for<\/p>\n
conducting an inquiry into the acts complained of in the<\/p>\n
Memorandum      dated    2nd   November,   2005.      The     alleged<\/p>\n
usurpation of the post of Director ACBR and the concealment of<\/p>\n
factum of removal as Vice-chancellor, Bundelkhand University,<\/p>\n
Jhansi in our opinion constitute prima facie reason to enquire<\/p>\n
into the conduct of the Appellant. In this respect we also find<\/p>\n
considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondent that the Appellant did not have any lien on the post<\/p>\n
of Acting Director, ACBR, since it was merely an acting<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                        [Page 25 of 26]
\n assignment which came to an end on the appointment of<\/p>\n
Professor    Vani    Brahmachari       vide     notification        dated<\/p>\n
20th September, 1999, and the subsequent appointment by the<\/p>\n
Respondents of Daman Saluja as Acting Director in the place of<\/p>\n
Vani Brahmachari,       which appointments have never been<\/p>\n
challenged by the Appellant herein in any proceeding.<\/p>\n
27. Furthermore, no grounds have been set out by the Appellant<\/p>\n
for seeking the quashing of the resolution dated 17th October,<\/p>\n
2005 and there is nothing urged on behalf of the Appellant to<\/p>\n
show whether there was any jurisdictional error on the part of<\/p>\n
the Respondents in either passing the resolution dated the<\/p>\n
17th October, 2005 or the steps that have been taken thereafter<\/p>\n
by the University of Delhi.    On the contrary as is evident from<\/p>\n
Clause 6 of the Annexure to Ordinance XI, the University of<\/p>\n
Delhi was duly empowered to take action in this behalf against<\/p>\n
the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28.   For the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in the<\/p>\n
impugned order. Consequently the appeal is without any merit<\/p>\n
and is hereby dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J<\/p>\n
                                              MADAN B. LOKUR, J<\/p>\n
May 21, 2009
\nbp<\/p>\n
[LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008]                           [Page 26 of 26]\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009 Author: Siddharth Mridul * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229\/2008 & C.M.APPL.Nos.6984, 16445\/2008, 2846\/2009, 3091\/2009 Reserved on : 6th April, 2009 Date of Decision: 21st May, 2009 PROFESSOR RAMESH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nProfessor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-13T07:06:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T07:06:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5917,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-13T07:06:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-13T07:06:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T07:06:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009"},"wordCount":5917,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009","name":"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-13T07:06:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/professor-ramesh-chandra-vs-the-university-of-delhi-ors-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Professor Ramesh Chandra vs The University Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}