1 Reserved on : 04/07/2025 Delivered on : 08/10/2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3071 of 2013 1 - Smt. Meenakshi Pandey S/o Late Ramnath Pandey, Aged About 45 Years Village And Post Birkona, Thana Koni Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Samridh Pandey, S/o Late Ramnath Pandey, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village And Post Birkona, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G., 3 - Sankalp Pandey, S/o Late Ramnath Pandey, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village And Post Birkona, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Guru Ghasidas Central University Through Vice Chancellor Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Registrar Guru Ghasidas Central University Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri S.P.Kale with Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Ambast, Shri Udit Khatri and Shri Ravi Singh, Advocates ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) C A V Order This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following relief (s)- 2 “1. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record for the kind perusal of Hon’ble Court. 2. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare Departmental enquiry is illegal, not just and proper. 3. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the dismissal order dated 08/02/2013 (Annexure P/1). 4. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner with wages and consequential benefits. 5. Any other direction or relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 6. Cost of the petition be also awarded.” 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner was working as Class IV employee. Thereafter, he was appointed as ‘Farrash’ under the establishment of the respondent / authority. His services found satisfactory. Then petitioner was regularised w.e.f. 22/06/1996. The authority charge sheeted the petitioner and thereafter, he was dismissed from service. He was issued with chargesheet alleging misconduct of indiscipline, carelessness and absence without permission. It has been alleged that the petitioner was suspended for misbehaviour even then he has not improved his work and behaviour. Against the petitioner, several complaints were received from the higher authorities. The charge sheet dated 23/07/2012 (Annexure P/2) is reproduced as under - आरोप पद क्रमां क -1 - यह किक श्री रो मांना थ प ण्डेय, फरो स (भृत्य) आप किश्वकिद्या लय मां अपना स ओं क प्रकि$ अना%शा सनाहना ए ल परो ह ह( $थ क य लय स कि)ना अना%मांकि$ प्र प्$ किकए अना%पस्थि,$ रोहना क आद- ह(। आपक समांय-समांय परो चे$ किनाय 0 ए स्पष्टीकरोण जा रो किकय गय ह( परो $% आपक क य व्यह रो मां कई स%धा रो परिरोलक्षि;$ नाह< हुआ ह(। यह किक श्री रो मांना थ प ण्डेय, फरो स (भृत्य) आचेरोण ए व्यह रो किश्वकिद्या लय मां प्रचेलिल$ परिरोकिनायमां ए लिसकिल स आचेरोण किनायमां 1964 मां किनाकिह$ ए किनाधा रिरो$ किनायमां? / प्र धा ना? क किपरो$ ह(। आरोप पद क्रमां क -2 - यह किक श्री रो मांना थ प ण्डेय, फरो स आपक अभृद्र$ पAण व्यह रो क क रोण आपक किनाल कि)$ किकय जा करो आपक ऊपरो शा स्तिD$ अधिधारोकिप$ कF जा चे%कF ह(। 3 शा स्तिD$ अधिधारोपण क उपरो $ भृ आपक क यव्यह रो मां स%धा रो परिरोलक्षि;$ नाह< हुआ ह(। आप दिदना क 26.02.2011 क दपहरो लगभृग 2.30 )जा शारो ) क नाशा मां ) लक छा त्रा स मां प्रशा करोना क प्रय स किकए $थ चेरो करोना क प्रय स किकय । आप कई ) रो क य लय मां शारो ) क नाशा मां उपस्थि,$ ह जा $ ह(। यह किक श्री रो मांना थ प ण्डेय, फरो स, (भृत्य) आपक आचेरोण ए व्यह रो किश्वकिद्या लय मां प्रचेलिल$ परिरोकिनायमां ए लिसकिल स आचेरोण किनायमां 1964 मां किनाकिह$ ए किनाधा रिरो$ किनायमां? / प्र धा ना? क किपरो$ ह(। आरोप पद क्रमां क -3 - यह किक श्री रो मांना थ प ण्डेय, फरो स (नात्य) आप Dच्छं द प्रक्षिL क अना%शा सनाहना ए ल परो ह कमांचे रो ह(। आपक किरूद्ध किक्षिभृन्न स ) धिधा$ किभृ ग? स लग $ रो लिशाक य$ प्र प्$ हुई ह( आपक उच्चा धिधाक रिरोय? क द्वा रो मांRखिTक ए लिलखिT$ चे$ किनाय 0 द- जा चे%कF ह(, परो $% आप अपना क$व्य? क प्रकि$ ल परो ह )ना हुए ह(। यह किक श्री रो मांना थ प ण्डेय, फरो स, (नात्य) आपक आचेरोण ए व्यह रो किश्वकिद्या लय मां प्रचेलिल$ परिरोकिनायमां ए लिसकिल स आचेरोण किनायमां 1964 मां किनाकिह$ ए किनाधा रिरो$ किनायमां?/ प्र धा ना? क किपरो$ ह(। 3. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and denied the charges levelled against him. On 18/08/2012, the disciplinary authority and Registrar appointed Enquiry Officer and presenting officer mentioning that the petitioner has not filed reply to the charge sheet. Without considering the reply, the authority appointed enquiry officer which shows that they were doing empty formalities. The disciplinary authority and Registrar furnished copy of order dated 18/07/2012 to the Vice Chancellor. On 25/09/2012 and 26/09/2012, the enquiry officer called the witnesses of the prosecution. The enquiy officer issued a letter on 01/10/2012 and directed the petitioner to appear on 05/10/2012. The enquiry officer wrote enquiry report on 10/10/2012 and the petitioner was found guilty of alleged charges. The petitioner submitted reply to the above enquiry report on 24/11/2012. The disciplinary authority dismissed the services of the petitioner on 08/02/2013 vide Annexure P/6). 4. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner – Ramnath Pandey died and his legal heirs were impleaded as party in the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Registrar has no power 4 to dismiss the services of the petitioner. He submits that the Registrar shall make a report to the Vice- Chancellor along with his recommendation and only the Vice- Chancellor can impose penalty like dismissal of the employee. The enquiry officer has not given opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner. He submits that without following procedure of departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of alleged charges. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted reply to the above enquiry report on 24/11/2012 and on the basis of that report, the disciplinary authority dismissed the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner never remained absent without permission of the authority. The leave register and attendance register were not produced before the enquiry officer and without perusing the same, the enquiry officer came to a conclusion of unauthorised absence. He submits that the allegation of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner is baseless and without any medical examination. He submits that the charges framed against the petitioner are vague. No specific time and date of misconduct has been mentioned. Therefore, it is prayed that the charges against the petitioner are not proved and therefore, may kindly set aside the dismissal order of the petitioner as this will adversely affect the entire retiral dues of the petitioner and his family will suffer hardship in any manner. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and ors., 2013 AIR SCW 2573, Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and ors.,1999 AIR SCW 129, Union of India and ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 LAB IC 308, Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR ONLINE 1963 SC 11 and Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and ors., 2012 AIR SCW 2604. 6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that under the provisions of Section 35 of the Central University Act, 2009, there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner for filing an appeal before the Apex Body i.e. the Executive Council against the decision of any officer or authority of the University or before the Vice Chancellor under the statute 6 (5) (a) of the Act of 2009, however, the petitioner without resorting to the said alternative remedy filed the instant writ petition. It is submitted that the competent authority of the respondent university upon issuing charge sheet have conducted a full fledged enquiry and after affording sufficient opportunity of 5 hearing to the petitioner and upon submission of enquiry report by the enquiry officer and further giving show-cause notice to the petitioner vide dated 10/11/2012 and upon issuance of the final show cause notice to the petitioner and further considering the reply of the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner on 24/11/2012, the competent authority vide order dated 08/02/2013 and after taking into consideration the recommendation of the enquiry officer wherein 3 charges have been proved against the petitioner as well as representation of the petitioner, the major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed. It is submitted that the decision was taken by the Vice-Chancellor in the note-sheet and though the Registrar has the power to take disciplinary action against such employees excluding teachers and other academic staff under the provisions of Statute 6(5) of the Act, 2009, the communication was issued as well as the execution of the decision by the respondent No.2 Registrar vide order dated 08/02/2013 as respondent No.2/ Registrar of the University is the Chief Executing Authority of the University. He submits that the petitioner has actively participated in the proceedings of departmental enquiry during the period from 26/09/2012 to 06/10/2012 which shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but he did not chose to cross examine any witness. All the proceedings are duly signed by him. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612; Sadhna Chaudhary v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2020) 11 SCC 760, Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. And anr. v. K. Hanumantha Rao & anr. reported in (2017 2 SCC 528, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, State of Orissa and anr. v. Sangram Keshari Misra & anr., 2010 (13) SCC 311. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The original records of the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondents against the deceased petitioner was summoned and was produced before this Court. Perusal of record indicates that vide order/letter dated 23/07/2012 (annexure P/2), charge sheet was issued to the deceased petitioner leveling three charges against him. First charge is in respect of he being 6 indisciplined and negligent towards his duties and is in habit of remaining absent without prior approval. He has been issued warnings and explanation, however, no improvement in his work and behavior is seen. The second charge is that he has been suspended and imposed with the punishment on account of his indecent behavior despite that no improvement in behaviour and work is seen. It is alleged that on 26//02/2011 at about 2:30 PM under the influence of liquor, he attempted to enter the boys hostel and attempted theft. He usually was in influence of liquor. 3rd charge against him is that he is an indisciplined, negligent employee and had a promiscuous tendency and complaints have received from different departments and he has been given oral and written warning by the higher officials, still he is negligent towards his duty. The said act of the deceased petitioner however, is in violation of service conduct rules, 1964 of the respondent university. Along with the charge sheet, list of 10 documents were appended and list 14 witnesses were also appended. From perusal of the charge sheet, it appears that the basic allegations against the petitioner is that his behaviour is not proper, he remained absent from duty without proper information and tried to enter the boys’ hostel drunken condition in order to commit theft. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply of the charge sheet vide Annexure P/3 dated 17/08/2012. It appears that his reply was not taken into consideration and vide his reply dated 18/08/2012 (Annexure P/4), the enquiry officer was appointed and the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was set on motion. Though recital of Annexure P/4 indicates that the deceased petitioner has not filed reply to the charge sheet whereas it is factually incorrect. Thus, it is quite evident that before issuance of order dated 18/08/2012 (Annexure P/4), no consideration or deliberation was made on the reply submitted by the deceased petitioner. Thereafter, the enquiry was set on motion and total 17 witnesses appear to have been examined. It is pertinent to mention that the charge sheet contains name of details of only 14 witnesses whereas in the departmental enquiry, 17 witnesses were examined. 10. Perusal of records of the departmental enquiry would indicate that firstly the statement of the deceased petitioner was recorded in which he has categorically denied the allegations leveled against him. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded. It does not appear from the records as after the statement 7 of witnesses were recorded, the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to cross examine. In the bottom, after completion of statement of the witnesses, the plea of deceased petitioner is recorded as he agreed to the statement. It does not reflect that before the plea of deceased petitioner is recorded, any recital is made during the course of enquiry that the deceased petitioner was informed about his right to cross examine the witnesses and thereafter, on refusal to it, his plea was recorded in the statement. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to justify that the petitioner was given proper opportunity to defend himself and infact, he was given proper opportunity to defend himself and infact, he was given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and he agreed to the statement of many witnesses and his plea was recorded after the statement of the witnesses which does not appear to be correct in the light of the fact that if any procedure was adopted, it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to note down such fact that the petitioner was informed and asked to cross examine the witnesses and on failure to do so, his plea was recorded below the statement. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically argued that the petitioner was not granted opportunity to cross examine. It finds force in the factual scenario in the light of above. 12. The law with regard to judicial review in the departmental enquiry is no longer res integra. A Court exercising its power does not act as an appellate body to re-examine the evidence and finding but rather scrutinizes the decision making process for procedural fairness and legality. It has to be seen that the employee must have reasonable chance to defend themselves, respond to the allegations and present evidence. Refusing the delinquent employee the right to cross examine the witnesses is a significant procedure and propreity that can vitiate the enquiy. If the enquiry relied upon the documents not provided to the employee, it amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend. The proposition which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, cannot be disputed. The power of judicial review in the departmental enquiry by the Courts are limited and interference can only be warranted if there are parameters which are enumerated herein above. If such finding which has been recorded based on no legal evidence, the Court can always interfere in the departmental enquiry. 8 13. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has found all the charges proved against the petitioner. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was found in inebriated condition on the basis of a certificate No.5224 dated 31/08/2012 and certificate no.676 dated 14/09/2012 given by Dr. A.N.Mandal in which alcohol (+) and alcohol (++) was proved. It is very surprising that the certificates which have been relied upon by the enquiry officer is subsequent to issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner. Apart from this, the enquiry officers have relied upon the statement of Pravesh Dalai (PW15), Sudesh Kumar Gauraha (PW16), Suraj Singh (PW17) to give a finding that the petitioner remained in drunken condition. Surprisingly, these witnesses were not mentioned in the list of witnesses which was supplied to the deceased petitioner. Even otherwise, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor on 14/09/2012 and 31/08/2012 but no such charge was leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet. It is a settled position of law that in a departmental enquiry, the charges against the petitioner must be distinct, clear and unambiguous for the proceeding to be fair and legally valid. It is a core principle of natural justice as vague or in precise charges, prevent the accused from preparing active defence. Making a decision by the enquiry officer on such evidence which were not put to the deceased petitioner along with charge sheet, cannot be relied to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was under influence of liquor. Apart from this, it has to be seen that the charges must be specific and particular and not vague and indefinite. The employee must be able to clearly understand the nature of accusation. Though specific charges were framed that on 26/02/2011 at about 2:30 PM, under the influence of liquor, the petitioner attempted to enter boys hostel and attempted theft. All the other allegations with regard to inebriated condition is general and omnibus charge. No specific date has been mentioned in the charge sheet as to on which date the deceased petitioner appeared in the duty in inebriated condition. From the record, it does not appear that on 26/02/2011, any medical report is available to suggest that the petitioner was inebriated condition. Of course, one of the witnesses in the departmental enquiry has stated at the time when they saw the petitioner in drunken condition, he jumped and ran away. But the fact remains that even thereafter, when a serious allegation of 9 inebriated condition is leveled and attempt of theft was made against the petitioner, it does not appear that any action like reporting the matter immediately to the police was taken. The law in this regard has been dealt in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930. In that case, the drunkenness of an accused in a criminal case was under consideration and in that context, Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the statement of the doctor who stated that a person could smell of alcohol without being under the interest of drinking. No urine test of the accused was carried out and even no report of the analysis of blood was produced by the respondents. In that context, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that on these evidence, it cannot be definitely held that the accused was drunk at the time of accident. 14. In the matter of Munna Lal Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 15 SCC 399, the Supreme Court was dealing with charge against a Police Sub Inspector, who was allegedly found in a drunken condition while on duty. Dealing with the issue, the Supreme Court held thus in para 4 & 5 : “4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant was found guilty of dereliction of duty previously also and there were other disciplinary proceedings against the conduct of the appellant. But in the instant case it was not proved that the appellant was drunk on the day when he was in duty. Evidence was not satisfactory to prove that he was found with any alcohol and he was also not taken to Safdarjung Hospital as suggested by the first doctor. 5. In the absence of positive evidence, we are of the view that the charge levelled against the appellant was not proved satisfactorily. In the absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority should not have imposed such penalty. Therefore, the punishment imposed was illegal and the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in service and he is entitled to get 50% of the back wages for the period he was out of service. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith. The appellant's service during this period would be treated for other service benefits such as seniority, increment and 10 pension.” 15. In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Narendra Dutta Rai Vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 8613, has referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in the matters of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra) and Munna Lal (supra), to hold thus in para 49 & 51 : “49. Before imposing major penalty upon an employee the respondent authorities ought to have conducted the necessary medical test(s) to come to a definite finding that the employee was under the influence of alcohol which resulted in his misconduct. The respondents ought to have satisfied themselves that the employee was in such a mental and physical condition so as to deprive him of clearness of intellect and control of himself which he would otherwise possess and the said behavior was under influence of alcohol. In the absence of any corroborating piece of evidence an employee ought not to be removed from service. XXXXXXXX 51. It is the well settled principle of law that the onus to prove the offence lies on the prosecution. In the instant case, it was the obligation of the respondent authorities to prove the case against the appellant and not the other way round. In the absence of any cogent evidence against the appellant the case against him could not have been proved by the respondents. Moreover the definite statement made in Charge II that the attending 'doctor of the hospital confirmed the intoxicated condition' of the appellant is absolutely false. This shows the predetermined and biased mind set of the disciplinary authority who conducted the inquiry against the appellant.” 16. Though some oral evidence in the departmental enquiry is available to say that he was under the influence of liquor but that cannot be said to be legal evidence. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the enquiry officer committed a manifest irregularity in holding the charge No.2 of petitioner being in inebriant condition. Apart from this, the other charge is that the petitioner remained 11 unauthorisedly absent. The charge sheet does not contain any specific date as to from which date to which date, he remained absent. There has to be a definite finding of the enquiry officer that unauthorised absence of the deceased petitioner was willful and deliberate. Though it has been admitted by the deceased petitioner during the course of enquiry that he remained absent for one month however that itself is not a factum to prove that his absence was deliberate and willful. 17. Dealing with the identical issue, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 in Para 17 & 18 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 18. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” 18. In case of Chhel Singh Vs. MGB Gramin Bank, Pali and others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 166 in paragraph 12 held as under:- “12. From a plain reading of the charges we find that the main allegation is absence from duty from 11.12.89 to 24.10.90 (approximately 10 and ½ months), for which no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority. In his reply, the appellant has taken the plea that he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90, which was beyond his control; he never intended to 12 contravene any of the provisions of the service regulations. He submitted the copies of medical certificates issued by Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the post. The medical reports were submitted after about 24 days. There was no allegation that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful and deliberate. The Inquiry Officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was willful and deliberate. It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the Doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.” Thus, in the absence of such finding, it cannot be said that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent. 19. So far as his misbehaviour, no specific allegation leveled and on the basis of such vague allegations, in the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the enquiry officer does not appear to be legal. 20. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) was issued by an incompetent authority in the light of Statute 6 (5) (a) framed under Central Universities Act, 2009. In order to appreciate this, the provisions contained in Statute 6 of the above Act is quoted herein below - “6.(1) The Registrar shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the University. (2) He shall be appointed for a term of five years and shall be eligible for re-appointment. (3) The emoluments and other terms and conditions of service of the Registrar shall be such as may be prescribed by the Executive Council 13 from time to time: Provided that the Registrar shall retire on attaining the age of sixty- two years. (4) When the office of the Registrar is vacant or when the Registrar is, by reason of illness, absence or any other cause, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such person as the Vice-Chancellor may appoint for the purpose. (5) (a) The Registrar shall have power to take disciplinary action against such of the employees, excluding teachers and other academic staff, as may be specified in the order of the Executive Council and to suspend them pending inquiry, to administer warnings to them or to impose on them the penalty of censure or the withholding of increment: Provided that no such penalty shall be imposed unless the person has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. (b) An appeal shall lie to the Vice-Chancellor against any order of the Registrar imposing any of the penalties specified in sub-clause (a). (c) In a case where the inquiry discloses that a punishment beyond the power of the Registrar is called for, the Registrar shall, upon the conclusion of the inquiry, make a report to the Vice-Chancellor along with his recommendations: Provided that an appeal shall lie to the Executive Council against an order of the Vice-Chancellor imposing any penalty.” 21. Perusal of this provision would indicate that the Registrar shall have the power to take disciplinary action against such employees excluding teachers and other academic staff as may be specified in the order of the Executive Council and suspend them pending inquiry, to administer warnings to them or to impose on them the penalty of censure or the withholding of increment. It also indicates that the petitioner shall be imposed unless the person has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to 14 him. The provision further envisages that an appeal shall lie to the Vice- Chancellor against any order of the Registrar imposing any of the penalties specified in sub-clause(a). In a case where the enquiry discloses that a punishment beyond the power of the Registrar is called for, the Registrar shall, upon the conclusion of the inquiry, make a report to the Vice-Chancellor along with his recommendations. Provided that an appeal shall lie to the Executive Council against an order of the Vice Chancellor imposing any penalty. Thus it is clear that the Registrar has only power to impose penalty of censure or withholding of the increment. If any major penalty is to be imposed against an employee, the Registrar shall submits its report with recommendation to the Vice Chancellor and as it appears that the Vice Chancellor shall pass the appropriate order. Against an order of the Vice Chancellor, an appeal would lie to the Executive Council. In the case in hand, the impugned order was passed by the Registrar imposing major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the light of the abovestated provision, the Registrar has placed the entire enquiry report along with his recommendation to the Vice Chancellor who has approved the same and therefore, as an execution of the same, the impugned order was passed by the Registrar. Therefore, this submission is liable to be repelled. Perusal of the original note sheet would indicate that though the recommendation and the enquiry report was submitted before the Vice Chancellor for approval but it does not appear that the Vice Chancellor applied its mind and gave a finding and imposed such a major penalty upon the petitioner. It only indicates that the Registrar has put the word ‘seen’ and thereafter he put his signature on it. Simply because the Registrar has seen the enquiry report, it ipso facto would not amount to approval of the same. Apart from this, the language of Section 6 of the Act of 2009 is explicitly clear that the Registrar can impose only the penalty mentioned therein and not otherwise. As it appears that if any other penalty which the Registrar is not empowered to be imposed, the same shall be imposed by the Vice Chancellor. It is a well principle of law that an act has to be done in a particular manner should be done in that manner and not otherwise. The Privy Council long back in the year 1936 in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 has observed as under - “….The rule which applies is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that 15 way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” Apart from this, on perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/1), it has not specifically mentioned that the approval to impose major penalty was obtained from the Vice-Chancellor by the Registrar before passing the impugned order. 22. Another argument was advanced by Shri Shrivastava is that there is an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. As discussed in the preceding paragraph that the order was not passed by the Vice Chancellor and it has been passed by the Registrar which was already submitted to the Vice Chancellor, in the opinion of this Court, this contention is also rejected. 23. Apart from this, the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition. This writ petition was filed in the year 2013, remained pending and was admitted for hearing and after detailed discussion on the merits of this case, this Court after so many years would not like to relegate the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy. Therefore, taking into consideration the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot stand to the scrutiny of this Court and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The deceased petitioner died during the pendency of this petition. Therefore, it is ordered that he shall be deemed to be re-instated in service with continuity of service. So far as back wages are concerned, the petitioners may make representation to concerned authority who may decide the same in accordance with law. As this Court has held the continuity of service of the deceased petitioner, if the petitioners are entitled to any retiral benefits like pension, gratuity etc., the same shall be paid to them within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.09 17:34:57 +0530