The Delhi High Court set aside the termination order dated March 20, 2023 by which Jamia Millia Islamia (the University) terminated the services of an Assistant Professor from the Department of Persian. The Court observed that the facts of the present case disclosed inadequate compliance with the principles of natural justice and found that the University failed to comply with Statute 37 of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988.
The petitioner contended that he was appointed for the aforesaid post in 2012 and claimed that he was subjected to victimisation by certain Professors in the Department, which ultimately led him to discontinue taking classes for a period of time but resumed taking classes in the year 2021, after a resolution of dispute by the University Registrar. He further submitted that no copy of the inquiry report was ever furnished to him and that he was unaware of the grounds on which the termination order was passed.
On the contrary, the respondent University claimed that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent for nearly two years, which led to several complaints against him. An Inquiry Committee was constituted on 05.04.2021 to look into both his complaints and the one filed by the Head of Department. After meeting both sides, the Committee found that his presence disrupted the academic atmosphere. Based on the report, the Executive Council resolved on 10.08.2022 to take strict action under service rules for his alleged dereliction of duty, refusal to engage in academic tasks, and misbehaviour. He was served a show cause notice dated 08.09.2022, to which he responded on 22.09.2022. However, the Executive Council, not satisfied with his reply, passed a resolution on 22.02.2023 recommending his removal, which was formalised by the impugned order dated 20.03.2023.
The Court observed that the inquiry report, on the basis of which the Executive Council passed its resolutions dated 10.08.2022 and 22.02.2023, was never served upon the petitioner, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to respond. The Court found that the Executive Council had already recommended removal of the petitioner even before any show-cause notice was issued, rendering the later notice of limited significance and amounting to a clear case of ‘too little, too late’.
Accordingly, Justice Prateek Jalan set aside the termination order dated 20.03.2023 and the Executive Council’s resolution dated 22.02.2023. The resolution dated 10.08.2022 was directed to be treated as a proposal for removal. The Court ordered that the inquiry report and related documents be furnished to the petitioner, who may file a detailed response within two weeks. The Executive Council is to consider the matter afresh in its next meeting, and the petitioner’s right to seek review under Statute 37(5) has been kept open.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Alamgir, Advocate
Respondents: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, SC for JMI with Ms. Shmeta Singh, Mr. Sarjeet Kumar, Advocates
