Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Jamia Millia Assistant Professor Terminated Without Proper Hearing
The Delhi High Court has set aside the order of Jamia Millia Islamia University terminating the services of an Assistant Professor for unauthorised absence, who claimed to have discontinued taking classes for a period of time over alleged victimisation by certain other Professors of the varsity.
In doing so, Justice Prateek Jalan noted there was “inadequate compliance with the principles of natural justice” in as much as the inquiry report, on the basis of which the Executive Council passed its resolutions terminating the Petitioner, was never served upon him.
The Court also flagged non-compliance of Statute 37(4) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 requires that a reasonable opportunity to show cause be given to the concerned faculty member before a decision is taken by the Executive Council.
Sarfraz Ahmad, Assistant Professor in the Department of Persian joined the varsity back in 2012. After his unauthorised absence, the Registrar of the University statedly permitted him to resume taking classes in the year 2021.
The position of the University however was that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from classes for approximately two years, as a result of which petitioner’s renewed presence in the Department vitiated the academic atmosphere.
Court noted that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner after the Executive Council had already recommended his removal.
Stating that is a “clear case of too little, too late”, the Court directed the varsity to treat the Council’s recommendation as a mere proposal and serve on the Petitioner its inquiry report.
“The petitioner may file a detailed response within two weeks of service of the inquiry report, showing cause why his services should not be terminated. The response will be treated as the opportunity to show cause under Statute 37 (4) of the 1988 Act,” it ordered.
The High Court noted that resolution of the Executive Council was predicated solely on the Inquiry Committee’s report.
“Non-service of the report is, therefore, of great significance, as it deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to respond to the principal allegations against him,” it said and disposed of the plea.
Appearance: Mr. Alamgir, Advocate with petitioner; Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, SC for JMI with Ms. Shmeta Singh, Mr. Sarjeet Kumar, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: Sarfraz Ahmad v. Vice Chancellor, JMI And Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15525/2023