IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2385 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar Sanyal ……...Petitioner Versus YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi and Ms. Bhavinta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “a. That the appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the office order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) may very kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for his alleged insubordination while he was working as Assistant Professor Regional Horticultural Research & Training Station, Dhaulakuan, District - 2 - Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, but purposely, with a view to harass him, Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University fixed his headquarter for the purposes of inquiry at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chamba, with further direction to the petitioner not to leave the headquarter without obtaining prior permission of the Vice Chancellor. 3. Having taken note of the afore grouse of the petitioner, this court passed order dated 21.2.2025, which reads as under: “CWP No.2385 of 2025 & CMP No.2303 of 2025 Upon listing of the case today, Learned Counsel for the Respondent- University, on telephonic Instructions of Vice Chancellor concerned states that the petitioner may approach the authority whereafter his headquarters, shall be changed/fixed at Nauni, District Solan instead of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chamba. Accordingly, let petitioner approach the Authorities latest by 24.02.2025 and necessary orders for fixing Headquarter at Nauni be issued by the Authorities on or before 25.02.2025.” 4. Though now in terms of the aforesaid order, headquarter of the petitioner for the purpose of inquiry has been fixed at Nauni, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, instead of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chamba, but yet on one pretext or the other, petitioner is not joining the disciplinary proceedings. After passing of aforesaid order, he repeatedly made prayer before this Court to change his headquarter for the purposes of inquiry to Dhaulakuan, where at present he is posted. 5. Such prayer has been seriously opposed by the respondents for the reason that since certain documents which were - 3 - otherwise directed to be produced by the Director of the University, are lying in the office of University at Dhaulakuan, petitioner, in the event of his headquarters being fixed at Dhaulakuan, may temper with. During the pendency of the case at hand, learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly argued that since there is life threat to the petitioner that too from officials of the university at Nauni, it may not be possible for him to join disciplinary proceedings at Nauni. Petitioner also claimed before this Court that in past, during his visit to Registrar of University, he was given beatings and in that regard, he had filed representation to the Registrar of University, but till date, no action has been taken, however, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute that on account of criminal assault, if any, by the officials of the respondent-University at Nauni, no criminal case was registered by him at the police station concerned. 6. Reply filed by the respondent-University, if read in its entirety, clearly reveals that petitioner herein, for one reason or the other, is embroiled in litigation with the University. 7. In one case of alleged sexual harassment against the petitioner, respondent-University taking lenient view though debarred him from teaching for two years, but permitted him to remain in the service of the University. Before afore case could be settled, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner for - 4 - his having not complied with order passed by his superior, whereby certain documents were called for. 8. Since despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to supply the documents, respondent-University vide impugned order dated 13.2.2025 (Annexure P-5), placed him under suspension and for the purpose of inquiry, fixed his headquarters at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chamba, which subsequently came to be changed to Nauni, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, on the directions of this court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though petitioner has no objection in joining disciplinary proceedings at Nauni, but in that situation, Registrar of University may be directed to provide adequate security so that during his visit, he is not harmed. 10. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while responding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that there is no threat to life of the petitioner much less from the officials of the University, but yet Registrar of University would ensure that during his visit to University for the purposes of inquiry, he is not harmed by anybody. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to join disciplinary proceedings initiated against him at Main Centre of University at Nauni at 11:00am on 24.7.2025 in the office of Inquiry Officer and during afore visit of the petitioner to the University, Registrar would - 5 - ensure that no harm, physical or mental, is caused to the petitioner by any official of the respondent-University including inquiry officer. Since petitioner is expected to remain present at headquarters for the purpose of inquiry, Registrar of the respondent-University would do the needful in terms of instant order on each and every day of inquiry, failing which he besides inviting contempt proceedings would also be responsible for harm, if any, caused to the petitioner. It is also made clear that in case petitioner fails to come present before the competent authority on the date fixed by this Court, respondent-University would be at liberty to proceed with disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate orders. 12. Petitioner is also expected to behave decently and in the event of misbehavour on his part, inquiry officer may lodge complaint to the higher authorities. Subsistence allowance for the period of suspension of the petitioner, if not already paid, be paid on or before the date fixed by this Court. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. In the afore terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any. July 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge