# University of Allahabad & Ors v. Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 483
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-26
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 596 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/university-of-allahabad-ors-v-dr-raghvendra-mishra-anr-52370
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Law
-
Termination
-
Appointment on probation as Assistant
Professor - Non-disclosure of the crime
number and details of offence - Effect -
Gravity of offence or acquittal after trial,
how far relevance - Held, an employee on
probation can be discharged from service
on
the
ground
of
unsatisfactory
antecedents and suppression of material
information or making false St.ment in
reply to queries relating to pendency of
the criminal case as it shows a current
dubious conduct and absence of character
at the time of making the declaration,
thereby making him unsuitable for the
post - Neither the gravity of the criminal
offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein
was relevant - The employer/University is
well within its domain in not continuing
the petitioner, who is facing grave charge
of molestation and is bailed out in the
criminal case.. (Para 33, 46 and 56)

B.
Service
law
-
Termination
of
probationer - Ordinance XLI, Conditions
of Service of teachers of the University -
Clause 5 (a) - Principle of natural justice,
how far relevance - Held, principles of
natural justice need not be followed while
terminating the services of a probationer.
Neither any notice is required to be given
to the probationer nor any opportunity of
hearing is to be accorded to him. Merely
because
the
order
terminating
probationer's
service,
refers
to
his
unsatisfactory performance not suitable
for confirmation, the order cannot be said
to be stigmatic. (Para 39)

Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,957 of 85,196. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39957 for what follows._

9 All. University of Allahabad & Ors. Vs. Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr.
483
in accordance with law. Accordingly, the
order impugned passed by learned Single
Judge is modified to the above extent.

51. With the above observations and
directions,
the
appeal
stands
partly
allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 483
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 596 of 2024

University of Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Kunal Shah, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sankalp Narain, Shahsi Shankar
Tripathi

A.
Service
Law
-
Termination
-
Appointment on probation as Assistant
Professor - Non-disclosure of the crime
number and details of offence - Effect -
Gravity of offence or acquittal after trial,
how far relevance - Held, an employee on
probation can be discharged from service
on
the
ground
of
unsatisfactory
antecedents and suppression of material
information or making false St.ment in
reply to queries relating to pendency of
the criminal case as it shows a current
dubious conduct and absence of character
at the time of making the declaration,
thereby making him unsuitable for the
post - Neither the gravity of the criminal
offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein
was relevant - The employer/University is
well within its domain in not continuing
the petitioner, who is facing grave charge
of molestation and is bailed out in the
criminal case.. (Para 33, 46 and 56)

B.
Service
law
-
Termination
of
probationer - Ordinance XLI, Conditions
of Service of teachers of the University -
Clause 5 (a) - Principle of natural justice,
how far relevance - Held, principles of
natural justice need not be followed while
terminating the services of a probationer.
Neither any notice is required to be given
to the probationer nor any opportunity of
hearing is to be accorded to him. Merely
because
the
order
terminating
probationer's
service,
refers
to
his
unsatisfactory performance not suitable
for confirmation, the order cannot be said
to be stigmatic. (Para 39)

Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs Gujarat Steel
Tubes Mazdoor Sabha; 1980 (2) SCC 593

2. Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs Satyendra Nath
Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,
Calcutta & ors.; (1999) 3 SCC 60

3. Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs Sanjay Gandhi
PGI of Medical Sciences & anr.; (2002) 1 SCC
520

4. Daya Shankar Yadav Vs U.O.I.& ors.; (2010)
14 SCC 103

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs Ram Ratan
Yadav; (2003) 3 SCC 437

6. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
& anr. Vs Anil Kanwariya; (2021) 10 SCC 136

7. Satish Kumar Yadav Vs U.O.I.; (2023) 7 SCC
536

8. Mathew P. Thomas Vs Kerala St. Civil Supply
Corpn. Ltd. & ors.; (2003) 3 SCC 263
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. Rajasthan High Court Vs Ved Priya & ors.;
(2021) 13 SCC 151

10. Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. Vs
Swayam Prakash Srivastava & anr.; (2007) 1
SCC 491

11. St. of W.B. & ors. Vs Tapas Roy; (2006) 6
SCC 453

12.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs St. of
Jharkhand & ors.; (2011) 4 SCC 447

13. St. of Uttar Pradesh & anr. Vs Kaushal
Kishore Shukla; (1991) 1 SCC 691

14. St. of Madhya Pradesh & ors. Vs Abhijit
Singh Pawar; (2018)18 SCC 733

15. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I.; (2016) 8 SCC 471

16. Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs U.O.I.; AIR 1958
SC 36

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amit Saxena, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kunal Shah,
learned counsel for the appellants-respondents
and Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain & Sri Srivats
Narain, learned counsel for the respondentpetitioner.

2. Present Special Appeal has arisen from
a judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge dated 23.05.2024 passed in Writ A
No.17284 of 2023 (Dr. Raghvendra Mishra vs.
Union of India and 3 others) by which the writ
petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed.

FACTS

3. The respondent-petitioner belongs
to the category of 'Economically Weaker
Section' and he has 50% permanent visual
impairment. He is an academic scholar
having Bachelor's and Master's degrees
and completed M.Phil. and Ph.D. from
Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi.
In
pursuance
of
the
advertisement
No.UoA/Asst.
Prof/01/2021
dated
28.09.2021 published by the University of
Allahabad1, he applied for post of
'Assistant Professor' in the Department of
Sanskrit,
Pali,
Prakrit
and
Oriental
Languages
of
the
University
on
16.10.2021. At the time of filling up the
application form in column under the head
of 'Disclosure' containing the query 'Do
you have any criminal case pending against
you in a Court of Law?', the petitionerrespondent had mentioned 'Yes' and under
column of details, he had mentioned 'FOR
STUDENTS
POLITICAL
ISSUES'.
Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in
different stages of selection and on the
basis of the recommendation of the
Selection Committee dated 18.05.2022 and
approval by the Executive Committee in its
meeting dated 21.05.2022, he was selected
on the post of Assistant Professor (PWBDA (EWS) in the Department of Sanskrit,
Pali, Prakrit and Oriental Languages of the
University.

4. Consequently, the University had
issued
an
appointment
letter
dated
21.05.2022 in favour of the petitioner on
the terms and conditions mentioned therein.
In pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined
the said post and started working on
probation of one year. Subsequently, vide
notification dated 08.8.2023, the probation
period of all newly appointed teachers was
extended by one year in terms of
Resolution of the Executive Council dated
20.06.2023. Thereafter, the meeting of the
Executive Council of the University was
held on 15.09.2023, wherein the Executive
9 All. University of Allahabad & Ors. Vs. Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr.
485
Council vide resolution No.06/78 dated
15.09.2023 had unanimously resolved to
not extend the services of Dr.Vidhu Khare
Das, Associate Professor, Centre of Theatre
and Films and Dr. Raghvendra Mishra,
Assistant Professor, Department of Sanskrit
of the University (petitioner) and to
terminate their contract of service under
Clause 5 (a) of the Ordinance XLI,
Conditions of Service of teachers of the
University. For ready reference, Resolution
No.06/78 of the Executive Council is
reproduced hereinafter:-

"After due deliberation on the
service rendered by Dr. Vidhu Khare Das,
Associate Professor, Centre of Theatre and
Films, University of Allahabad and Dr.
Raghvendra Mishra, Associate Professor,
Department of Sanskrit, University of
Allahabad, it was unanimously resolved by
the Executive Council to not extend their
services (currently under probation) and to
terminate their contract of service under
clause 5 (a) of the Ordinance XLI:
Conditions of Service of Teachers of the
University. It has been decided to make a
payment of a sum equivalent to one
month's salary in lieu of a notice of
termination. The services of Dr. Vidhu
Khare Das and Dr. Raghvendra Mishra
shall be considered to be dispensed with,
with effect from the date of the meeting.
Hon'ble Members of the Executive Council
unanimously approved the same.

Dr. Deepali Pant Joshi, nominee
of the Hon'ble Chancellor in the Executive
Council said that a teacher is a role model
and it is good to nip any problem in the
bud, for smooth functioning and future of
the institution."

5. Consequently, the Registrar of
University vide order dated 15.09.2023
had dispensed with the services of the
petitioner-respondent with effect from
15.09.2023. For ready reference, the same
is reproduced herein under:-

"To,

Raghavendra Mishra

Vill.
Jhadapi
-
Jhadapa
(Gotibandh)

Post
-
Nandana,
Dist.
Sonbhadra

Robertsganj, Uttar Pradesh -
231213

Subject: Termination of services
with effect from 15.09.2023

Sir,

By
the
appointment
letter
no.05/R/1499/2022
dated
21.05.2022,
you were appointed to the post of
Assistant Professor (PWDB-A, EWS
Category) in the Department of Sanskrit,
University of Allahabad. Your probation
period was 1+1 years as per the
aforementioned appointment letter.

Vide
Resolution
No.06/78
of
Executive Council dated 15.09.2023, it
has been resolved not to extend your
service (currently under probation) and to
terminate your contract of service under
clause 5 (a) of the Ordinance XLI:
conditions of service of teachers of the
University.

It has been decided to make a
payment of a sum equivalent to one
month's salary in lieu of a notice of
termination. Therefore, your services are
being dispensed with, with effect from
15.09.2023.

Thanking you,
(Prof. N.K. Shukla)
Registrar"

6. Aggrieved by the termination
order, the respondent-petitioner preferred
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ A No.17284 of 2023 interalia seeking
the following reliefs:-

"i. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiarari
quashing the impugned resolution no.6/78
passed by the Executive Council of the
Univrsity of Allahabad, Prayagraj in its
78th meeting dated 15th September, 2023
in so far as it resolved to terminate the
services of the petitioner as an Assistant
Professor in terms of Clause-5 (a) of
Ordinance XLI (Annexure-7 to the writ
petition).

ii. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the first consequential letter dated
15.9.2023 terminating the services of the
petitioner as Assistant Professor in the
Department of Sanskrit, University of
Allahabad issued by the Registrar of the
University
(Annexure-8
to
the
writ
petition).

iii. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the second consequent relieving
order dated 15.9.2023 issued by the
Registrar relieving the petitioner from his
service (Annexure-9 to the writ petition).

iv. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent-authorities not
to interfere with the peaceful functioning of
the petitioner as an Assistant Professor in
the University and ensure payment of
month to month salary to him.

v. to issue any other writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit
and
proper
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case.

vi. to award cost of the writ
petition to the petitioner."

7. After considering the pleadings and
submissions of the parties, learned Single
Judge has accepted the submissions of the
respondent-petitioner
and
accordingly,
allowed the writ petition vide impugned
judgement and order dated 23.05.2024,
which is under challenge in the instant
Special Appeal. Relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced herein below:-

"17. The outcome of above
factual and legal analysis is that the
petitioner was appointed under a due
process. He has completed satisfactory
service on probation of one year and on
basis of his satisfactory service, his
probation was extended for a period of one
year. On basis of material available which
also includes the material provided by
University in a sealed envelope that within
a few months of passing an order of
extension of probation period of one year,
the Executive Council considered the case
of petitioner even without being part of
agenda with permission of Chair and
terminated his services under clause 5(a) of
the Ordinance XLI.

18. It is a definite stand of the
University that there were some material
before the Executive Council which were
considered and as referred above, the
material was a complaint of Co-ordinator,
wherein there are allegations against
petitioner as well as a news cutting that
petitioner was involved in a criminal case.
It is also stand of University that material
was not considered to be such which
requires an inquiry to consider its truthness
but it was not conducted, therefore, from
last paragraph of resolution which has
already been reproduced earlier, it could be
held that definitely the said materials were
considered and found adverse to petitioner
and for that the Court is of the considered
opinion that order becomes stigmatic since
all the resolutions are on the website of
University and open for view of general
9 All. University of Allahabad & Ors. Vs. Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr.
487
public also and in case, petitioner applies in
any other University, the said material will
definitely become adverse to his future
prospects.

19. The Court takes note that it is
stand of University that truthfulness of
allegations were not verified, therefore,
petitioner was penalized only on basis of
complaints whose contents were not
verified and even before completing the
extended period of probation of one year.
Accordingly, the case of petitioner would
fall under clause 2(e) and (f) as contended
by the petitioner and not under clause 5(a)
of Ordinance XLI as contended by the
respondent-University
and
admittedly
procedure prescribed under clause 5(a) was
not
followed,
therefore,
impugned
Resolution and impugned termination order
become illegal. The procedure adopted by
University thus has legal flaws and was
also against the legal principle discussed in
Ved Priya (supra). The Court is of the
considered opinion that Resolution dated
20.06.2023 qua to petitioner and order of
termination dated 15.09.2023 are illegal,
therefore, liable to be set aside and ordered
accordingly.

20. It would also be relevant to
observe that the effect of judgment of this
Court would be only that petitioner will be
remained in probation till one year from the
date of his extension of probation and
thereafter respondent University would be
at liberty to take a decision in terms of
relevant clauses of Ordinance XLI.

21. The petitioner was out of
service from 15.9.2023 to till date of this
judgment and same will be considered on
principle of 'No Work No Pay' and his
satisfactory service at the end of extended
period of probation will be considered on
basis of period he worked. The University
is directed to allow petitioner to work on
post concerned forthwith.

22. The petitioner is also put on
caution that he will diligently discharge his
duties of a teacher and he will not indulge
in any activity which is adverse to his
profession and will also remain polite with
his
co-employees
and
shall
disclose
complete details of criminal case and it
would also be a factor for consideration for
his confirmation.

23. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed with aforesaid observations and
directions."

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT

8. Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the appellant
University
vehemently
submitted
that
respondent-petitioner was selected and
offered appointment on the post of
Assistant Professor on 21.05.2022. The
service conditions of the teaching staff of
the University are regulated by Ordinance
No.XLI. In view of Clause 2 (a), the
respondent-petitioner was to remain on
probation for a period of one year, which
could be extended by one year. In the
instant matter, the Executive Council vide
resolution dated 20.06.2023 had extended
the probation period of all the newly
appointed teaching staffs including the
petitioner and accordingly, a notification in
this regard was issued by the Registrar of
the University on 08.08.2023. As the
respondent-petitioner was on his extended
period of probation, certain materials
against him were brought into the notice
and
upon
consideration
thereof,
the
University had decided not to go into the
merits of the allegations and in the meeting
of the Executive Council dated 15.09.2023,
it was unanimously resolved to dispense
with the services of the respondentpetitioner by passing a simplicitor order of
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
termination, as envisaged under Clause 5
(a) of Ordinance XLI. A consequential
order of termination and relieving was
passed by the University on 15.09.2023.

9. Sri Amit Saxena further submitted
that the grounds taken for challenging the
action of the University before the Writ
Court were mainly:-

1. Termination from service was
bad in law as the same was in derogation to
the
procedure
for
termination
of
probationers enshrined in Clause 2 (f) of
the Ordinance XLI. Only after service of
notice to the respondent and after eliciting
his explanation in respect of the grounds on
which his services were proposed to be
terminated, could the order of termination
have been passed by the University.

2. The order dismissing the
Respondent is stigmatic in as much as it
casts aspersions on the working of the
Respondent, upon the statement made by
Dr. Deepali Pant Joshi, the nominee of the
Hon'ble Chancellor, who in the meeting of
the Executive Council while considering
the issue of further continuity of the
services of the Respondent and another
probationer said "that a teacher is a role
model and it is good to nip any problem in
the bud for smooth functioning and future
of the institution".

3. If the statement of Dr. Deepali
Pant Joshi is taken on its face value it
suggests that there was some problem visa-vis the respondent and since the problem
is relatable to the respondent which has
resulted in discontinuation of his services,
the University ought to have followed the
procedure prescribed in Clause 2 (e) read
with Clause 2 (f) of the Ordinance.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant University submitted that while
filing the detailed counter affidavit, the
appellant University had taken categorical
stand that there were materials before the
Competent
Authority
and
after
consideration of the same, it chose not to
go into the truthfulness and on merits of the
same and unanimously resolved not to
continue the services of the respondentpetitioner. Thus, the same classified as a
simplicitor order of termination, which is
envisaged under Clause 5 (a) of the
Ordinance. The statement of Dr. Deepali
Pant Joshi was made in reference to the
exalted stature of a teacher as visualized in
Indian
society
and
such
general
observations could not be taken as
stigmatic. It was further endeavour of the
appellant University to ensure that no
stigma is casted upon the respondentpetitioner, and in this backdrop the
appellant University sought leave of the
learned Single Judge to exempt it from
bringing on record the materials, which
were there before the University on the
basis of which the order of termination
simplicitor was passed and to produce the
same by way of a sealed cover.

11. It was urged by the learned Senior
Counsel that in the midst of the proceeding
before the learned Single Judge and as per
direction of learned Single Judge, two set
of materials were placed before the Court
i.e.
(i)
a
confidential
letter
dated
13.09.2023 by the Coordinator, Department
of Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit & Oriental
Languages
addressed
to
the
Vice
Chancellor of the University, wherein
certain complaints were made against the
respondent and (ii) materials demonstrating
the
act
of
concealment
of
material
particulars by the respondent-petitioner as
regards the disclosure in the form, which he
was required to make about the details of
the criminal case pending against him as
9 All. University of Allahabad & Ors. Vs. Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr.
489
well as the nature of the offence for which
the respondent-petitioner is facing criminal
trial.

12. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that the learned Single Judge committed an
egregious error in passing the impugned
judgement dated 23.05.2024 and recorded
perverse
finding
in
para-19
of
the
impugned judgment to the effect that
"truthfulness of allegations were not
verified, therefore, petitioner was penalized
only on basis of complaints whose contents
were
not
verified
and
even
before
completing
the
extended
period
of
probation of one year." He submitted that
said
finding
militates
against
the
fundamental principles governing service
jurisprudence,
which
envisaged
dispensation of services of the probationer
by way of a simplicitor termination order
without assigning any reason.

13. He assertively submitted that in
the instant matter, it is admitted case that
the appellant-University neither held any
enquiry nor called for any report vis-a-vis
material before it and chose to simply
discharge the respondent-petitioner under
Clause 5 (a) of the Ordinance with a view
to give him a chance to make good in other
walks of life without a stigma. In support of
his submission, he has placed reliance on
the judgements in Gujarat Steel Tubes
Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha2; Dipti Prakash Banerjee v.
Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre
for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others3,
Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay
Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences &
Anr.4 and Daya Shankar Yadav vs.
Union of India and others5.

14. Sri Saxena further argued that the
learned Single Judge has also erred in law
while placing too much emphasis upon the
statement of Dr. Deepali Pant Joshi, and
having regards to the fact, that there were
adverse materials before the University, the
order of termination becomes stigmatic. It
was submitted that stigma is something that
detracts the character or reputation of a
person. He submitted that an order can be
said to be stigmatic only if it is couched in
a language, which imputes something over
and above mere unsuitability for the job. In
the instant matter, Dr. Deepali Pant Joshi
had only made a statement that a teacher is
a role model and it is good to nip any
problem in the bud for smooth functioning
and future of the institution. The general
role of the teacher as being a role model
has been stated and as such, nothing more
can be attributed to such statement of Dr.
Deepali Pant Joshi. There is no material
contained either in the impugned order of
termination or in the resolution to which
the impugned order makes a reference that
imputes anything over and above the
unsuitability for the job. Learned Single
Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that
the statement of Dr. Deepali Pant Joshi was
also not individually directed towards the
respondent-petitioner
inasmuch
as
the
Executive Council was considering the
issue of further continuity of the services of
not only the respondent-petitioner but also
of another probationer. More so, the
statement of Dr. Joshi is to be taken in
individual capacity and the same cannot be
taken as the statement made by the
Executive Council.

15. Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior
Advocate submitted that even though there
is admitted case of concealment of criminal
case by the respondent-petitioner, but the
learned Single Judge has utterly failed to
ascribe due weightage to the factum of
concealment of material particulars in the
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application
form
by
the
respondentpetitioner as well as nature of offence qua
which the respondent-petitioner was facing
criminal
prosecution.
He
vehemently
argued that assuming the respondentpetitioner was not guilty of suppression of
material particulars, still the appellant
University is fully justified and competent
to discharge the services of the petitionerrespondent during the probation. Even on
his own admission before the learned
Single Judge that the respondent-petitioner
had not made complete disclosures of the
material particulars regarding pendency of
the criminal case against him. The learned
Senior Counsel placed strong reliance on
the judgements in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav6;
Rajasthan
Rajya
Vidyut
Prasaran
Nigam Limited and another v. Anil
Kanwariya7 and Satish Kumar Yadav v.
Union of India8 to fortify his submission
that
probationer,
who
has
secured
appointment
by
suppressing
material
information with respect to prosecution in a
criminal case, can be terminated from
service.

16. It was next submitted by Sri Saxena
that the learned Single Judge during the midst
of the argument had also raised certain
queries
from
the
respondent-petitioner
regarding the criminal case to which he was
having no satisfactory answer and contrarily,
learned Single Judge has held that pendency
of the criminal case was in the knowledge of
the University and it chose not to seek details
from the candidate. Further the pendency of
the criminal case was not considered to be
adverse by the appellant University either at
the stage of selection process or at the stage
of extension of period of probation. The said
finding of learned Single Judge is also not
sustainable. Neither, it was the case of the
respondent-petitioner in the writ petition nor
there is anything on record to even remotely
suggest that the adverse materials were
available before the appellant University at
the stage of selection process or at the stage
of extension of period of probation. It was
argued that even if the University had not
rejected
the
application
form
of
the
respondent-petitioner at the stage of selection
process on the ground of non-disclosure of
complete particulars of pendency of criminal
case, even in that situation the appellant
University could not be estopped from
dispensing with his services on the said
ground, in view of the undertaking extended
by the respondent-petitioner in his application
form as well as Clauses 5 and 6 of the
appointment letter.

17. In support of his submission, Sri
Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate has
also placed reliance on paras 14 and 15 of the
judgment impugned. For ready reference,
paras 14 and 15 of the judgement are
reproduced herein under:-

"14. The other document is the
copy of application form submitted by
petitioner at the time of applying for the
post. The Court perused the same and
found that in the column Disclosure, do
you have any criminal case pending against
you in a court of law. The petitioner has
declared, Yes, however, in the column of
details, it was only mentioned that 'FOR
STUDENTS' POLITICAL ISSUES'. The
details of offence were not disclosed. In
papers provided by Registrar, Allahabad
University, there is a document which is a
news published on a website, namely,
Khabar, that petitioner was arrested in a
case of a harassment of a girl in JNU
Campus.

15. During hearing, petitioner
was present in person. The Court has asked
a query about nature of criminal case
9 All. University of Allahabad & Ors. Vs. Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr.
491
against him. He fairly submits that a case of
outrage of modesty was lodged against him
wherein after investigation charge-sheet
has been filed and it is at the stage of trial
and presently he is on bail. The Court also
asked a query that why he has not disclosed
the details of it in the form, however, he
had no satisfactory answer to it. At this
stage, it would be relevant to mention that
the issue of pending criminal case was not
considered to be adverse either at the stage
of selection process or at the stage of
extension of period of probation; though it
might be considered against petitioner
during the meeting of Executive Council
held on 15.09.2023. It would be relevant to
note that information in regard to a criminal
case was available with the University
since it was disclosed in application form
though details were neither mentioned nor
sought by the University."

18. He further submitted that during
the course of hearing of the writ petition
the respondent-petitioner was present in
person in the Court room and once the
Court had asked the query about the nature
of criminal case against him then he fairly
submitted that a case of outrage of modesty
of a woman was lodged against him,
wherein, after investigation the chargesheet
has been filed and it is at the stage of trial
and presently, he is on bail. The learned
Single Judge has even observed in the
impugned judgement that "the Court also
asked a query that why he has not
disclosed the details of it in the form,
however, he had no satisfactory answer to
it". In this backdrop, he has placed reliance
on the judgement passed by the Apex Court
in Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union of
India and others (supra) and submitted
that even if the respondent-petitioner is not
guilty of willful suppression of material
facts relating to pendency of criminal case
against him, however, if the employer
having regard to the nature and gravity of
the criminal case, the information of which
he may acquire through any means can
choose to discharge the probationer from
service. He submitted that even the nature
of offence for which the respondentpetitioner is facing criminal trial cannot be
characterized as trivial. The offence for
which the respondent-petitioner has been
charged, shocks the moral conscience of
the society.

19. He further argued that learned
Single Judge has returned the erroneous
finding that the proceeding of Executive
Council was suspicious and prejudicial
inasmuch as there was no agenda. Learned
Single
Judge
has
further
recorded
erroneous finding that the materials, which
were there before the University at the time
of dispensation of the service of the
petitioner, were not considered adverse at
the stage of extension of probation period
of the petitioner, which occasioned on
20.06.2023. He submitted that learned
Single
Judge
has
proceeded
on
an
erroneous assumption in law that the
extension of probation envisages rendition
of satisfactory service by the probationer.
Even since the confidential letter of the
Coordinator, Department of Sanskrit, Pali,
Prakrit & Oriental Language is of date
13.09.2023 and the same would have no
relevance in the matter, in view of the
provision under Clause 2 (c) (ii) (1) of the
Ordinance XLI, which provides "not being
a
teacher
of
a
University
College
maintained by the University, except after
considering the report of the concerned
Head of the Department, Director of the
University Institute or Head of the
independent Centre or, where the post is
not assigned to a specific Department,
University Institute of independent Centre,
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the officer or functionary under whom
the teacher has been placed in accordance
with the said arrangements". In the instant
matter, by no stretch of imagination, the
confidential letter dated 13.09.2023 sent by
the Coordinator could be taken as a report
in view of provision under Clause 2 (c) (ii)
(1) of the Ordinance. As a complaint, the
Coordinator of the department concerned
has only indicated the behaviour of the
respondent-petitioner.

20. In the last, the learned counsel
submitted that the order impugned in the
writ petition was not stigmatic in nature as
no allegation has been made against the
respondent-petitioner
and
it
was
unanimously resolved in the meeting of the
Executive Council not to continue his
service as per the procedures prescribed in
Clause-5 (a) of the Ordinance. Therefore,
the judgement and order passed by learned
Single Judge is unsustainable under the
facts and circumstances and the same is
liable to be set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS

21. Per contra, Sri G.K. Singh,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the
respondent-petitioner,
vehemently
opposed the instant appeal and submitted
that in most arbitrary manner, the
services of the respondent-petitioner were
terminated and the same was stigmatic in
nature.
Admittedly,
the
appellant
University
had
not
followed
the
procedure prescribed in Clause 2 (e) and
(f) of the Ordinance XLI. Even though
there was no such concealment of fact in
the application form in the column under
the head of 'disclosure', which required
'Do you have any criminal case pending
against you in a Court of Law?, the
respondent-petitioner
had
mentioned
'Yes' and under column of details, he
mentioned 'For Students Political Issue'.
Therefore, it cannot be said that he had
concealed the criminal proceeding. In the
facts and circumstances, learned Single
Judge was absolutely right in holding that
the truthfulness of the allegations were
not verified and the petitioner was
penalized only on the basis of complaint
so made by the Head of the Department.
Even in view of Clause 2 (e) and (f) of
the Ordinance, there is detailed procedure
but the said procedure was not followed.
Even the said issue was not in the agenda
and therefore, learned Single Judge has
rightly held that the proceedings of the
Executive
Council
were
certainly
suspicious and prejudicial inasmuch as
there was no agenda for the same.

22. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel further submitted that learned
Single Judge has rightly held that details of
so-called material were not disclosed. Even
though the appellant University had filed
counter affidavit and in the last paragraph
of the resolution No.06/78, which was
adopted on 15.09.2023, it was stated that
Dr. Deepali Pant Joshi, who is nominee of
the Hon'ble Chancellor in the Executive
Council, said that a teacher is a role model
and it is good to nip any problem in the
bud, for smooth functioning and future of
the institution. The learned counsel for the
respondent-petitioner placed strong reliance
on the judgement of the Apex Court in
Mathew P. Thomas vs. Kerala State
Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. and others9 to
fortify his submission that if the services of
a probationer were terminated by an order
of termination simplicitor but the language
of material to support it either show that it
was punitive or stigmatic on the fact of it,
the Court may leave the way to consider
9 All. University of Allahabad & Ors. Vs. Dr. Raghvendra Mishra & Anr.
493
the attending circumstances for such order
of termination.

23. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that during the proceeding before
learned Single Judge, a sealed envelop was
placed by the Registrar of the University,
which contained the documents including a
letter of Prof. Prayag Narayan Mishra dated
13.09.2023, Coordinator Sanskrit, Pali,
Prakrit Evam Prachya Bhasha Vibhag,
which
was
addressed
to
the
Vice
Chancellor of the University, wherein the
Coordinator
had
mentioned
some
complaints in regard to behaviour of the
respondent-petitioner and even learned
Single Judge has also taken note of the said
complaint into notice. Once the complaint
was entertained then the Executive Council
has only to adopt the procedure in terms of
Clause 2 (e) and (f) of the Ordinance XLI
and not under Clause 5 (a) of the
Ordinance. Accordingly, learned Single
Judge has rightly observed that truthfulness
of allegations were not verified and the
petitioner was penalized only on the basis
of complaints whose contents were not
verified and even before completing the
extended period of probation of one year.
Learned Single Judge has rightly observed
that the case of the petitioner falls under
Clause 2 (e) and (f) of the Ordinance XLI
and the same would not fall under Clause 5
(a) of the Ordinance. Admittedly, the
appellant University had not followed its
own mandate, which provides detailed
procedure under Clause 2 (e) and (f) of the
Ordinance XLI and therefore, the same is
unsustainable. The judgement and order
passed by learned Single Judge is liable to
be approved and the instant appeal is liable
to be dismissed.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE

24. The main contention urged before
the learned Single Judge was that the order
terminating the services of the respondentpetitioner was punitive in nature and it
attached stigma to him. The learned Single
Judge observed that undisputedly, the
petitioner had completed his probation
period of one year successfully and
satisfactorily and therefore, by a unanimous
decision of Executive Council vide a
resolution 20.06.2023, the probation period
of petitioner and other appointees was
extended further for one year from the date
of Executive Council dated 20.06.2023
vide notification dated 08.08.2023. The
learned Single Judge further observed that
in normal circumstances, extension of
probation period for one year by a
Notification dated 8.8.2023 would mean
that the petitioner has a satisfactory service
and, therefore, he was found fit to continue
on probation for further one year and final
decision
would
be
taken
on
his
confirmation only after one year or any
time earlier.

25. Learned Single Judge further
considered the question that once after
considering service of petitioner, the
Executive Council adopted the resolution
dated
26.06.2023
and
extended
the
probation period of petitioner for one year,
which would come to end in August, 2025,
then under what circumstances the matter
of petitioner was taken up for consideration
within a short period of three months. The
learned Single Judge recorded a finding
that the Executive Council in its 78th
meeting, without being a part of the
circulated agenda but with permission of
the Chair, considered the agenda on the
subject without any apparent reason and
therefore, procedure adopted appears to be
suspicious and suffered with prejudice also.
Learned Single Judge further observed that
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in this regard, the stand of the University as
specifically mentioned in their counter
affidavit, was that there were certain
materials against the petitioner before the
Executive Council, however, a decision
was taken not to hold any inquiry and
passed the order not to extend the probation
and to terminate the petitioner from service.
In counter-affidavit, details of so-called
materials were not disclosed and in the last
paragraph of Resolution No. 06/78 adopted
on 15.9.2023 it has been stated that Dr.
Deepali Pant Joshi, nominee of the Hon'ble
Chancellor in the Executive Council said
that a teacher is a role model and it is good
to nip any problem in the bud for smooth
functioning and future of the institution.

26. Learned Single Judge further
observed that at the time of hearing, the
petitioner was present in person and the
Court had asked a query about nature of
criminal case against him. The petitioner
fairly submitted that a case of outrage of
modesty was lodged against him, wherein
after investigation the charge-sheet has
been filed and it is at the stage of trial and
presently he is on bail. Learned Single
Judge also asked a query that why he has
not disclosed the details of it in the form,
however, he had no satisfactory answer to
it. Learned Single Judge further observed
that the issue of pending criminal case was
not considered to be adverse either at the
stage of selection process or at the stage of
extension of period of probation. The
information with regard to a criminal case
was available with the University since it
was disclosed in application form, though
details were neither mentioned nor sought
by the University.

27. Learned Single Judge had relied
upon the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved
Priya and 2 others10, in which the Apex
Court has dealt with the issue of
termination during probation and if it was a
stigmatic order then its consequence.
Learned Single Judge observed that the
petitioner was appointed under a due
process. He had completed satisfactory
service on probation of one year and on
basis of his satisfactory service, his
probation was extended for a period of one
year. On the basis of material available,
which also includes the material provided
by University in a sealed envelope, the
Executive Council considered the case of
petitioner even without being part of
agenda with permission of Chair and
terminated his services under clause 5(a) of
the Ordinance XLI. It was the stand of the
University that there were some material
before the Executive Council, which were
considered
and
the
material
was
a
complaint of Co-ordinator, wherein there
are allegations against the petitioner as well
as a news cutting that petitioner was
involved in a criminal case.