2024 INSC 309 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 8788-8789 of 2023)

SANDEEP KUMAR .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

GB PANT INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

AND TECHNOLOGY GHURDAURI
& ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals are directed against the judgments dated

4th August, 2022 and 21st February, 2023 passed by the learned

Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B)

No. 395 of 2022 and MCC Review Application No. 4 of 2022 in Writ

Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022, respectively.

3. The learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court, vide

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

judgment dated 4th August, 2022 dismissed the Writ Petition(S/B)

Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.04.16
16:28:33 IST
Reason:

No. 395 of 2022 filed by the appellant herein under Article 226 of

1
the Constitution of India for assailing the order dated 19th May,

2022 passed by respondent No.2 terminating the services of the

appellant on the post of Registrar of respondent No.1- G.B. Pant

Institute of Engineering and Technology (hereinafter being referred

as ‘Institute’).

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4th August, 2022, the

appellant filed a review application being MCC Review Application

No. 4 of 2022 in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022 which too was

dismissed by the learned Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High

Court vide its judgment dated 21st February, 2023. These two

judgments are assailed in the present set of appeals.

5. Learned Division Bench of High Court held that the appellant

herein did not place on record the minutes of the 26th meeting of

the Board of Governors held on 16th June, 2018 which were

referred to in the termination letter dated 19th May, 2022 and that

this non disclosure tantamounted to suppression of material facts

warranting dismissal of the writ petition solely on that ground.

6. Shri Gautam Narayan, learned counsel representing the

appellant urged that the failure of the petitioner (appellant herein)

to place on record the aforesaid minutes was neither intentional

nor malafide. He referred to the minutes of the meeting dated 16th

2
June, 2018 placed on record of the instant appeals as Annexure

P-8 and urged that as a matter of fact, these minutes support the

case of the appellant because the Board of Governors of the

Institute approved the recommendations of the Selection

Committee, and thereby, selected the appellant as the Registrar of

the Institute.

7. He further drew the Court’s attention to the appointment

letter (Annexure P-10) dated 2nd December, 2019 wherein, it is

indicated that the appellant was being appointed on the post of the

Registrar on probation for a period of one year. He urged that the

appellant continued to satisfactorily serve as the Registrar of the

Institute for a period of nearly two years and hence, his services

were deemed to have been automatically regularized in terms of

clauses (a) and (b) of the appointment letter, which are reproduced

hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -

“(a) You will be on probation for a period of one year; however it

may be extended for another year in case performance is not
found to be satisfactory. No further extension on probation will
be given.

(b) During probation your service may be terminated without

assigning any reason by giving one month notice or pay in lieu
thereof. Similarly, you may give one month notice period or pay
salary equivalent to one month notice to be relieved from
institute.”

8. Learned counsel urged that before taking the action of

terminating the services of the appellant, neither any enquiry was

3
conducted nor any opportunity to show cause was given to the

appellant and merely on the ipse dixit of respondent No.2, the

services of the appellant were terminated. He urged that the

impugned order, whereby the learned Division Bench of High

Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on a purely

technical ground i.e. non-placing of relevant document on record,

is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He thus, implored the

Court to accept the appeals and set aside the impugned orders and

direct reinstatement of the appellant on the post of Registrar.

9. Per contra, Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior counsel

representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed

the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged

that the very appointment of the appellant on the post of Registrar

was illegal because he did not possess the requisite qualifications

as per the rules. He thus, urged that there was no requirement to

hold a regular enquiry before terminating the services of the

appellant. His contention was that the appellant concealed a vital

document in the writ petition filed before the High Court and thus,

he was not entitled to equitable relief in the extraordinary writ

jurisdiction.

4
10. However, Shri Tiwari was not in a position to dispute the fact

that before imposing the major penalty of termination of service

upon the appellant, no disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the

authorities.

11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned judgments.

12. The impugned judgment rejecting the writ petition of the

appellant is premised purely on the fact that the appellant failed

to place on record the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of

Governors dated 16th June, 2018, which are referred to in the

termination letter dated 19th May, 2022. The Division Bench of

High Court held that these minutes would have shown that the

appointment of the petitioner (appellant herein) to the post of

Registrar was made contrary to the rules. We are afraid that these

observations of the Division Bench are not fortified from the

minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018 which have been

placed on record by the appellant in these appeals.

13. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant excerpts of the

minutes of meeting dated 16th June, 2018 (Annexure P-8) are

reproduced hereinbelow: -

5
 “26.08: Approval of the recommendations/minutes of various
Selection Committee regarding the Advertisement No.
01/Admn/ 2017 dated 03.01.2017 on the nonteaching posts
and the advertisement no. 01 / faculty /2013 – 14 dated
08.06.2013 of the teaching staff in reference to 25th meeting of
the Administrative Council and the Hon’ble High Court.

As per rule of the College Byelaws, the envelopes of the

recommendations/minutes of the Selection Committee was
opened by the Administrative Council and the
recommendations and the minutes of the Selection Committee
were approved as per below: -

S. No. Name of the Name of the Name of the Category

Candidate Department Post
1. Dr Mahipal Civil Engineering Professor General
Singh Chauhan
2. Dr Harvendra Computer Science Associate General
Singh Bhadoria and Engineering Professor
3. Mr. Vivek Kumar -do- Assistant SC
Tamta Professor
4. Mr. Papendra -do- -do- SC
Kumar
5. Dr. Sachin Mechanical -do- General
Tejyan Engineering
6. Mr. Sunil -do- -do- General
Chamoli
7. Mr. Ravikant -do- -do- SC
Ravi
8. Mr. Chandraveer -do- -do- SC
9. Mr. Suresh Biotechnology -do- General
Chandra
Phulera
10. Mr. Divyesh Civil Engineering -do- General
Sharma
11. Mr. Siddharatha MCA -do- General
Chansela
12. Mr. Sandeep Administration Registrar General
Kumar

*As a result of the selection of Shri Lalta Prasad, Assistant

Professor (Scheduled Caste) in NIT Shri Nagar, if he
resigns/gives VRS from the post joining there, the appointment
letter may be issued to Shri Chandraveer against this post.

A number of complaints have been received regarding the

candidate selected for the post of Registrar. Their inquiry must

6
 be carried out. How the norms of selection have been fixed, the
detailed report be submitted. The proceedings of the
appointment be stayed until the next order.”

14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid minutes clearly indicates that

the recommendations of the Selection Committee, whereby, the

appellant herein was selected on the post of Registrar were

approved by the Board of Governors. However, a caveat was

marked to the effect that the appointment order of the appellant

would be kept in abeyance on account of the fact that some

complaints were received regarding the candidature of the

appellant on the post of Registrar.

15. In pursuance of the so called complaint(s), a three member

committee was constituted to scrutinize the documents and

qualifications/testimonials of the appellant vide order dated 26th

June, 2019 (Annexure P-36). The committee submitted its report

(Annexure P-37) on 11th July, 2019 finding all the documents of

the appellant to be genuine and in order. It also opined that the

appellant fulfilled the eligibility criterion for being appointed on the

post of Registrar.

16. A letter dated 10th November, 2019 (Annexure P-9) was

issued by the Member Secretary, Board of Governors of the

Institute addressed to the members of the Board of Governors

7
including the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Minister of Technical

Education (Chairman of the Institution) and the Additional Chief

Secretary (Vice Chairman of the Institution) seeking perusal and

approval of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and

to direct the Member Secretary, Board of Governors to issue the

appointment letter in favour of appellant.

17. Acting in furtherance of the said letter and the approval

granted by the competent authorities, an appointment letter dated

2nd December, 2019(Annexure P-10) was issued and the appellant

joined services on the post of Registrar. As per the extracted

portion of the appointment letter (supra), the appellant was placed

on probation for a period of one year which was extendable for

another year in case, the performance during the first year was

found to be unsatisfactory. Clause (b) further provided that during

probation, services of the incumbent may be terminated without

assigning any reason by giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu

thereof. There is no dispute on the aspect that the appellant had

satisfactorily worked on the post of Registrar in the Institute for

nearly two years and thus, apparently he completed the probation

period without demur.

8
18. On a bare perusal of the termination letter dated 19th May,

2022, it becomes apparent that the decision to terminate the

services of the appellant from the post of Registrar was not

preceded by an opportunity to show cause or any sort of

disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry as referred to in the

termination letter was in relation to the qualifications of the

appellant for being appointed on the post of Registrar. The letter

further indicates that the selection to the post of Registrar was not

approved by the Board of Governors in its 26th meeting dated 16th

June, 2018. The said observation in the letter dated 19th May,

2022 is totally erroneous and contradicted by the minutes of the

meeting dated 16th June, 2018.(reproduced supra)

19. In this background, we are of the firm view that the

termination of the services of the appellant without holding

disciplinary enquiry was totally unjustified and dehors the

requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural

justice. Hence, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell

in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant

on the hypertechnical ground that the minutes of 26th meeting of

the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018 had not been placed

on record.

9
20. As a consequence, we pass the following directions: -

(i) The impugned judgments dated 4th August, 2022 and 21st

February, 2023 passed by the High Court are quashed and set

aside.

(ii) The order dated 19th May, 2022 whereby, the services of the

appellant on the post of Registrar of the Institute were terminated

is also declared to be illegal and as a consequence, the same is

quashed and set aside.

(iii) That the appellant shall forthwith be reinstated on the post

of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology,

Ghurdauri. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

(iv) The respondent-Institute is left at liberty to conduct

disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as per law, if so

desired.

21. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

22. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

………………….……….J.
(B.R. GAVAI)

………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
April 16, 2024.

10