HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 5106 of 2019 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Avaneesh Tripathi, Advocate along with Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Digvijay Vajpayee, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rohan Gupta, on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3. 2. At the very outset, Sri Avaneesh Tripathi, learned Advocate, submits that an identical charge was made against one Professor Sanjay Mittal and the petitioner, i.e. Professor C.S. Upadhyay, for calling upon a meeting of the department, which resulted in prejudice to one Dr. Subrahmanyam Saderla. 3. He submits that though the matter had travelled to this Court on previous occasions and had been remanded to the Board of Governors; but finally, the issue has been brought to rest in pursuance of a decision passed in Special Appeal No. 693 of 2025 (Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union of India and others) along with Special Appeal No. 879 of 2025 (Indian Institute of Technology and another vs. Prof. Sanjay Mittal and two others), whereby the Special Appeal preferred by Prof. Sanjay Mittal was allowed and that preferred by I.I.T. was dismissed, and the judgment and order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5151 of 2023 was modified. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment dated 05.08.2026 is reproduced below:- "In view of the conclusion recorded hereinabove, Special Appeal No. 693 of 2025 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Govind Kumar Singh (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Arvind Kumar Goswami, Rohan Gupta Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) preferred by Prof. Mittal is allowed and Special Appeal No. 879 of 2025 preferred by IIT is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5151 of 2023 is modified to the extent that the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings against Prof. Mittal are set aside. Consequently, the resolution dated 23.07.2022 passed by the Board of Governors, IIT Kanpur, and the consequential office order dated 01.08.2022 issued by the Director, imposing punishment upon Prof. Mittal, is quashed. Prof. Mittal shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits, in accordance with law." 4. In view of the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial resolution dated 08.03.2019 also does not survive because, as far as Dr. Rajeev Shekhar was concerned, he was granted relief by this Court and has now retired. Hence, as far as he is concerned, there does not survive any cause of action. 5. As far as Dr. Ishant Sharma is concerned, he was given an advisory by the Board of Governors, which, to his extent, also culminated. As far as the third Professor, Dr. Sanjay Mittal, is concerned, as stated hereinabove, this Court has also set aside the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings against Professor Dr. Sanjay Mittal. 6. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that since the charges against the petitioner were identical to those against Dr. Sanjay Mittal, the present writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 05.08.2026. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Institute also submits that the Board of Governors is not inclined to pursue the matter against the petitioner, since the same has been given quietus by way of the judgment dated 05.08.2026, and accordingly, the impugned order may be set aside. 7. In view of the aforesaid, by the consent of the parties, the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 is hereby set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. September 29, 2026 piyush WRIA No. 5106 of 2019 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad