'Classic And Textbook Example Of Prejudice': Delhi High Court Raps JNU For Refusing To Relieve Officer For Deputation To Mozambique

Delhi High Court has directed the Jawaharlal Nehru University to forthwith issue a relieving order to enable an employee of the varsity to proceed on a short-term deputation with Indian Council for Cultural Relations in Mozambique.

The petitioner Umesh Babu had applied for deputation of 11 months as Teacher Indian Culture at ICCR's Cultural Centre and successfully cleared the interview for it in November 2021. He was issued an offer of appointment in April 2022. However, his employer JNU refused to issue him a relieving order on the ground of pendency of an inquiry into alleged fraudulent LTC claims.

Justice Jyoti Singh said it is a matter of record that the Inquiry Officer has rendered a finding that charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved and has absolved him in the case alleging violation of Rule 3 of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 16 of CCS (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 and provisions of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965, as well as other Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the University.

"Inquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion, based on records, facts and circumstances as well as the evidence available on record, that the charges made out in the charge-sheet are 'not proved'," said the court.

While the court clarified that no doubt the Inquiry Report has not attained finality as the Disciplinary Authority may or may not accept it, the bench said the probe report was rendered on November 16 in 2021 and till date, no final decision has been taken. JNU in the counter affidavit told the court that the report has been accepted and the same is being forwarded to the Ministry of Education.

Agreeing with a submission made by the counsel representing the petitioner that there are strict timelines prescribed for completion of disciplinary proceedings, the court said, "Reliance is correctly placed by the Petitioner on the OM dated 11.11.1998, which prescribes a period of 3 months, within which ordinarily the Disciplinary Authority should take a decision on the Inquiry Report. Beyond a scintilla of doubt, these Guidelines are sacrosanct and must be adhered to scrupulously."

Justice Singh further said that it needs no gainsaying that delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings not only works to the prejudice of the employee but also the employer and benefits none.

"Present case is a classic and text book example of prejudice to an employee, owing to delay in finalization of inquiry proceedings. Period of nearly 13 months has elapsed from the time when the Inquiry Officer rendered his Report in favour of the Petitioner and even today, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, as Respondent is unsure as to when the proceedings will attain finality".

The court said it would be unfair and unjust to the petitioner if he is not permitted to proceed for deputation, considering the fact that Competent Authority is yet to take a decision on the Inquiry Report.

"The Inquiry Officer has absolved the Petitioner of the charges and in the absence of any disagreement with the same, at this stage, in my view, there is no impediment in the Petitioner's path to proceed for deputation. Be it noted that the entire amount of LTC claim has been recovered along with penal interest @ 10% from the date of withdrawal and today, there is no financial loss to the Respondent," it added.

Observing that JNU is unable to give any acceptable or plausible explanation for the delay in acting on the Inquiry Report, the court said facts of the case require that a balance must be struck between the competing interests of the litigating parties.

"It needs no emphasis that Petitioner is only proceeding to join the post of a Teacher on a short-term deputation and is not permanently severing his relationships with the Respondent and/or proceeding to take up any private job and there is nothing that stops the concerned Authority from taking a decision on the Inquiry Report, one way or the other and consequences in law shall follow. However, if the Petitioner is not relieved to proceed for deputation, his chance for any future deputation with ICCR will be lost forever and even if he is finally exonerated, the harm done will be irretrievable," Justice Singh said.

On JNU's submission that a a three-member Inquiry Committee has been constituted to investigate further into the LTC claims, the court said it is unable to fathom and infer why and how a second Inquiry Committee has been constituted to investigate and inquire into the same charge, for which an Inquiry Report has already been rendered and is awaiting its logical conclusion. 

"Coming to the argument of the Respondent that deputation is not a matter of right, there can hardly be any debate on this proposition of law. However, an employee is entitled to a fair consideration and as a model employer, Respondent is under an obligation to show that the employee has been treated fairly," the court said.

Justice Singh said on one hand JNU has  refused to relieve the petitioner on the ground of alleged fraudulent LTC claim, despite the inquiry officer's finding that there is no moral turpitude or fraudulent act and he had no role in issue of the tickets; on the other hand, no steps have been taken to ensure that the inquiry report, rendered way-back in November, 2021, is taken to its logical end, expeditiously.

Allowing the petition, the court said: "Respondent has already recovered the amounts with penal interest and this Court finds no justification, at this stage, for the Respondent to decline issuance of the relieving order. Petitioner continues to be an employee of the Respondent and being a parent department, there is no proscription in passing any further order in the inquiry proceedings, even if Petitioner is on deputation for a short period of 11 months. Therefore, this Court sees no impediment in the Petitioner proceeding on deputation."

The petitioner had sought quashing of the letter dated 17.10.2022 by which JNU had rejected his request to relieve him for joining the post of Teacher Indian Culture at the High Commission of India, Maputo, Mozambique.

It was argued that deputation to the post in question, is a once in a life-time opportunity and failure of the Petitioner to join will bar him from taking up any assignment associated with ICCR in future, which was one of the conditions stipulated in the offer letter itself. JNU in response argued that he was given NOC for proceeding on deputation, subject to vigilance clearance. His request has been rejected on account of serious allegations, JNU argued.

Title: UMESH BABU vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment