Supreme Court Upholds Reinstatement Due to Flawed Inquiry in College Misconduct Case: Secretary Managing Committee BSMPG College Roorkee vs. Dr. Samrat Sharma & Others (2019) INSC 766 (08 August 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 08 August 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 766
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a college terminate a professor’s employment without following proper procedures? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a private aided college and one of its assistant professors. The court examined whether the college had adhered to the prescribed rules while conducting an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against the professor. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case involves Dr. Samrat Sharma, an Assistant Professor of Hindi at a private aided college affiliated with Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Central University. A complaint was filed against Dr. Sharma by another faculty member, Dr. (Smt.) Kamlesh Sharma, alleging misbehavior during a staff meeting on September 1, 2012. Following this, the college’s Managing Committee initiated an inquiry. After an initial inquiry, a fact-finding committee was formed, and later, a supplementary charge sheet was issued. The college eventually terminated Dr. Sharma’s services, which led to a legal challenge by Dr. Sharma.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Dr. Sharma challenged the termination order in the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court ruled in favor of Dr. Sharma, setting aside the termination and ordering his reinstatement with full back pay. The High Court found that Dr. Sharma had not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry. The college then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, and the First Statutes of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Central University, 1978. Clause 17.04 of the First Statutes outlines the grounds for dismissal or termination of a teacher, which include:

• “(a) wilful neglect of duty;
• (b) misconduct, including disobedience to the orders of the Principal;
• (c) breach of any of the terms of contract of service;
• (d) dishonesty connected with the University or college examinations;
• (e) scandalous conduct or conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude;
• (f) physical or mental unfitness;
• (g) incompetence;
• (h) abolition of the post with the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor.”

Clause 17.06 of the First Statutes details the procedure for conducting an inquiry, emphasizing the need for adequate opportunity for the teacher to present a defense.

Arguments

Appellant (College)’s Arguments:

• The college meticulously followed the procedure prescribed under the Universities Act and the First Statutes.
• The High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence from the departmental inquiry.
• The allegations against Dr. Sharma were serious, constituting misconduct under the First Statutes, and therefore, termination was justified.

Respondent (Dr. Sharma)’s Arguments:

• The inquiry was conducted in violation of the First Statutes.
• Dr. Sharma was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, especially regarding the supplementary charges.
• The decision was biased due to a conspiracy between the complainant and the Principal.
• The termination order was passed within ten days of the supplementary charges, without a proper inquiry.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the enquiry conducted against Dr. Sharma was in conformity with the First Statutes.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the First Statutes of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Central University, 1978, specifically Clauses 17.04 and 17.06, which detail the grounds for termination and the procedure for conducting inquiries against teachers. The Court also considered the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, under which the First Statutes were framed.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate Dr. Sharma, agreeing that the inquiry was not conducted as per the First Statutes. The court noted that while Dr. Sharma did not fully utilize the opportunities provided, the college’s inquiry process was fundamentally flawed. The court emphasized that it is the decision-making process, not the decision itself, that is subject to judicial review. While the court agreed that the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence, it upheld the reinstatement due to the procedural violations.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on the First Statutes of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Central University, 1978, Clause 17.04 to understand the grounds for termination but did not delve into the merits of the charges because of the procedural violations.
• The Court heavily relied on the First Statutes of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Central University, 1978, Clause 17.06 to determine if the procedure was followed and found that the procedure was not followed.
• The Court relied on the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 to understand the source of power for framing the First Statutes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural irregularities in the inquiry conducted by the college. The Court emphasized that while it is not within its purview to re-appreciate the evidence, it is essential to ensure that the decision-making process adheres to the prescribed rules and statutes. The Court found that the college failed to provide Dr. Sharma with an adequate opportunity to defend himself, especially in relation to the supplementary charges. This procedural lapse was the main reason why the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate Dr. Sharma.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court did not delve into the merits of the allegations against Dr. Sharma, focusing instead on the flawed procedure followed by the college. The Court emphasized that while it is not within its purview to re-appreciate the evidence, it is essential to ensure that the decision-making process adheres to the prescribed rules and statutes.

“We are in agreement with the contentions made by Mr. Pundir that the High Court committed an error in re- appreciating evidence in coming to the conclusion that the charges against Respondent No.1 were not established.”

“It is well settled law that it is the decision making process and not the decision itself which can be the subject matter of judicial review.”

“Interference with the penalty imposed on delinquent officers is permissible only when it shocks the conscience of the court.”

The Court did not find any dissenting opinions in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Educational institutions must adhere strictly to the procedures laid down in their statutes when conducting disciplinary inquiries.
• Employees must be given adequate opportunity to defend themselves against charges, especially when supplementary charges are added.
• Courts will primarily review the decision-making process rather than re-evaluating the evidence in disciplinary matters.
• The penalty imposed must be commensurate with the allegations, and the process must be fair.

Directions

The Supreme Court permitted the Appellant-College to conduct a fresh enquiry into the charges that have been communicated to Dr. Sharma, if they so wish.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that educational institutions must adhere strictly to the procedures laid down in their statutes when conducting disciplinary inquiries. This case reinforces the principle that procedural fairness is paramount in disciplinary proceedings. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement of Dr. Samrat Sharma, emphasizing the importance of following due process in disciplinary proceedings. The court’s judgment underscores that while the merits of a case are important, the process by which a decision is reached is equally critical. The college was permitted to conduct a fresh inquiry if they so wish, highlighting the need for fair and transparent disciplinary processes in educational institutions.