In a strongly worded judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the dismissal of Gani Mohammad Khan, a mathematics lecturer at Integral University, terming the disciplinary proceedings against him as “perverse” and in blatant violation of principles of natural justice.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi delivered the judgment in Writ-A No. 2000716 of 2009, Gani Mohammad Khan vs. Integral University, Lucknow & Others. The judgment, reserved on November 29, 2024, was pronounced on April 1, 2025.
Background of the Case
Mr. Khan was appointed as a Lecturer (Mathematics) on 28.08.2004 and joined duties on 01.09.2004. Within months, he was informally told his services were terminated after he allegedly gave lower marks to Ms. Nida Fatima, daughter of the then Vice-Chancellor Prof. S.W. Akhtar, in internal assessments. Khan alleged that this triggered retaliatory action against him.
Although his services were allegedly terminated on 29.11.2004, he continued to receive salary beyond that date, and official approval of termination came only on 04.01.2005. A prior writ petition led to the University formally withdrawing the termination, and Mr. Khan was reinstated.
However, disciplinary proceedings were later initiated again, and a fresh dismissal was imposed via an order dated 27.08.2007. Mr. Khan’s appeal was rejected by the Chancellor on 13.10.2008, prompting the current writ petition.
Key Legal Issues
- Maintainability of Writ Against a Private University
The University objected to the writ on grounds it was a private institution. The Court rejected this, noting:
“The dismissal and appellate orders were passed by statutory authorities under the Integral University Act, 2004… it is amenable to writ jurisdiction.”
It cited the Khurram Ashraf ruling and St. Mary’s Education Society (2023) 4 SCC 498 to assert that such actions involving statutory powers are subject to judicial review.
- Nature of Termination – Whether termination was “simplicitor” or punitive
Although the order claimed to terminate services during probation, the Court held:
“This is not a termination simplicitor of a probationer… it is a dismissal by way of punishment after holding an enquiry.”
Citing Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831], the Court emphasized that once a probationer is terminated on charges of misconduct, statutory protections under Article 311 of the Constitution apply.
- Violation of Natural Justice
The enquiry process was marred with multiple procedural flaws. The Court found that:
- The enquiry officer was a retired professor aged over 74, ineligible under the University’s own rules.
- The petitioner was not provided full documents, not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and denied adequate time to respond.
- No witness was examined in support of the charges in the final enquiry.
- The enquiry officer was a retired professor aged over 74, ineligible under the University’s own rules.
The Court observed:
A person cannot be held guilty in any enquiry proceeding merely because he failed to prove his innocence. On the country, guilt of the person is to be established by leading evidence in support of the charges, which was not done in the present case as no statements were recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the final enquiry report. It is only when the employer discharges the initial burden to prove the charges by leading evidence in support thereof, that the employee is required to lead evidence in his defence.
In reliance on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772], the Court held that the enquiry officer failed in his duty to act as a neutral adjudicator.
Court’s Findings and Decision
The Court decisively ruled:
- The dismissal order dated 27.08.2007 and the appellate order dated 13.10.2008 are set aside.
- The Court found the disciplinary enquiry process flawed, based on “unproved allegations” and “non-compliance with statutory requirements.”
- The petitioner’s dismissal was punitive, not a routine termination during probation.
In its concluding remarks, the Court said:
“The finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty because he failed to establish his innocence, although no evidence has been adduced, is perverse.”
Direction:
As a consequence of quashing of the termination order, services of the petitioner stand restored and the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, including payment of the entire back wages. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the University will pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards costs of the Writ Petition.
Counsel and Parties
The petitioner, Gani Mohammad Khan, was represented by Advocates Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Sharad Pathak, while Integral University and its officials, including the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor, were represented by a team led by Senior Advocate Sanjay Bhasin, assisted by Sri Tanveer Ahmad Siddiqui and Sri Shubham Tripathi, among others.
