Prayagraj- The Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal order of an employee of Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, strongly criticizing the university administration by stating that the disciplinary action against her was "motivated by bias and malice." The court observed that the action was initiated only after the petitioner lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against the then Officiating Registrar, S.N. Tiwari.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan's bench, in a significant ruling recently, quashed the termination order dated December 14, 2024, passed by the University Registrar. The court directed the university to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Staff Officer to the Vice-Chancellor immediately. This was the petitioner's fourth dismissal order that the court found to be illegal.

The court noted in its judgment, "It is a clear case of unnecessary harassment of the petitioner, as all proceedings against her were initiated only after she lodged a complaint against the Registrar." 

Elaborating further, the judgment stated, "These circumstances leave no room for doubt that the university authorities, and in particular the Registrar, acted with a clear design to target and harass the petitioner, thereby demonstrating a pre-determined and vindictive approach rather than a fair or lawful exercise of authority."

Action Based on a "Bogus Complaint"

The case pertains to the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Private Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor on a contractual basis in 2010. Her services were regularized in 2018, and she was later promoted to the post of Staff Officer. The petitioner's counsel argued that with a mala fide intent to harass her after she filed a complaint against Officiating Registrar S.N. Tiwari on August 6, 2020, alleging misbehavior and sexual harassment, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her.

Subsequently, on August 18, 2020, the university suspended her, citing a legal notice allegedly sent by one Vishnu Pratap Singh concerning irregularities in her appointment. However, the alleged complainant, Vishnu Pratap Singh, later submitted an affidavit disowning the complaint, stating he had never instructed any lawyer to issue such a notice. The court took serious note of this, indicating the proceedings were built on a false premise.

The court observed, "The entire chain of proceedings was set in motion only after the petitioner lodged a complaint... concerning an alleged legal notice purportedly issued by Shri Vishnu Prasad Singh... which stands categorically denied by the alleged complainant himself."

Allegations of Fake PhD Degree Found Baseless

The primary charge against the petitioner was that she had submitted a fake PhD degree and misrepresented herself by using the salutation 'Dr.' The university contended that this amounted to grave misconduct and fraud.

However, the High Court found that possessing a PhD was never an essential qualification for the post of Private Secretary or for promotion to Staff Officer. The court noted that the petitioner had only mentioned pursuing a PhD in her curriculum vitae at the time of application and had consistently denied ever submitting a PhD degree certificate. The court accepted the petitioner's defense that the document might have been placed in her file by the Registrar, against whom she had complained.

The judgment stated, "There was neither occasion nor necessity for the petitioner to submit or rely upon a Ph.D. degree. The allegation that the petitioner attempted to secure any undue advantage... is wholly misconceived and unfounded." It added, "The authorities have proceeded merely on surmises and conjectures, and that too after the petitioner had rendered several years of unblemished and satisfactory service."

The court also expressed displeasure that the university authorities, in "utter disregard" of its previous order dated November 29, 2023, had constituted a fresh three-member external enquiry committee. The court had earlier remitted the matter only for issuing a fresh show-cause notice or a disagreement note, not for a de novo enquiry.

The court remarked that this act "clearly reflects the mala fide intention of the authorities concerned" and was done with the "sole object of punishing the petitioner without any justifiable cause."

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that proceedings tainted by bias or malice are void. The court concluded that the action was not guided by bona fide considerations but was arbitrary and amounted to an abuse of process.

With this ruling, the petitioner's legal battle spanning over four-and-a-half years has culminated in a major victory, compelling the university administration to reinstate her with immediate effect.