Duty To Maintain Courtesy Towards Colleagues Can't Convert Every Disagreement Or Fair Criticism Into Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a service rule requiring an employee to maintain courtesy in dealings with colleagues cannot be interpreted in a manner that treats every disagreement, fair criticism or discussion about institutional affairs as misconduct. It held that a faculty member who convenes a meeting to raise concerns about a recruitment process does not thereby commit misconduct, in the absence of material showing an intention to harass, humiliate or undermine a colleague.The Court was hearing cross-appeals arising out of disciplinary proceedings taken by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur against a Professor of Aerospace Engineering for alleged breach of Rule 3(a) and Rule 3(b) of the Conduct Rules in Schedule B of the IIT Kanpur Statute.The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,“The requirement under the Conduct Rules that an employee should maintain courtesy and proper conduct in dealings with colleagues undoubtedly imposes an obligation of professional behaviour. However, the said requirement cannot be interpreted in a manner that converts every disagreement, fair criticism or discussion concerning institutional affairs into misconduct. The distinction between legitimate academic discussion and conduct warranting disciplinary action has to be maintained.”Dr. Subrahmanyam Saderla joined the Department of Aerospace Engineering at IIT Kanpur as an Assistant Professor on 1st January 2018. At a departmental get-together on 4th January 2018, Prof. Sanjay Mittal was alleged to have remarked that the standard of the Department was deteriorating on account of the recent recruitments. Thereafter, he circulated an email convening a faculty meeting to discuss alleged procedural lapses in those recruitments, to which Dr. Saderla and one other newly appointed faculty member were not invited.On Dr. Saderla's complaint alleging harassment and professional humiliation, the Board of Governors initiated disciplinary proceedings and appointed Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, a retired Judge of the High Court, as Inquiry Authority. Prof. Mittal's request to be represented by an advocate or a fellow Professor was rejected. The Inquiry Authority found him guilty, and the Board withheld two annual increments with cumulative effect for two years and debarred him from administrative responsibility for three years.That penalty order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Board to proceed afresh from the stage of consideration of the inquiry report and Prof. Mittal's representations against it. By resolution dated 23rd July 2022, the Board withheld two annual increments without cumulative effect for two years and continued the three-year bar.On the writ petition against that resolution, the Single Judge quashed the three-year bar as not being among the penalties prescribed under Statute 13(9)(b) of the IIT Kanpur Statutes, but upheld the withholding of increments as a minor penalty. Though it was observed that refusal of a legal practitioner before an Inquiry Authority who was a retired Judge was a procedural infirmity, it was held that the validity of the inquiry could not be reopened since the earlier remand had not set aside the inquiry report. Both sides appealed.Counsel for IIT, Kanpur objected to maintainability on grounds of non-joinder of the complainant, an available appeal to the Visitor under Statute 13(10) and delay. On merits, it argued that calling a meeting to question a colleague's appointment while excluding him was discourteous and unbecoming conduct, and that Rule 14(8)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 bars a legal practitioner unless the Presenting Officer is one.The Court rejected the objections, holding that an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar where breach of natural justice is alleged. It held that the complainant, being the initiator of the proceedings and a witness in the domestic enquiry, was not a necessary party as no relief had been sought against him.On the scope of the earlier remand, the Court held that the Single Judge had misread the order dated 11th May 2022. Since the matter had gone back to the stage of consideration of the inquiry report, every aspect of that report objected to by Prof. Mittal, including the refusal of legal representation, the alleged breach of natural justice and the findings themselves, was open to examination by the Board. “If the Board accepts an inquiry Report where the proceedings were in non-compliance of the principles of natural justice or based upon no reliable material to establish the misconduct, then the acceptance of such report would demonstrate non-application of mind by the Board.”Further, the Court held that the right to legal assistance is not automatic and must be tested against whether its denial caused procedural unfairness, having regard to the nature of the charges, the complexity of the issues and the...

Duty To Maintain Courtesy Towards Colleagues Can't Convert Every Disagreement Or Fair Criticism Into Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Duty To Maintain Courtesy Towards Colleagues Can't Convert Every Disagreement Or Fair Criticism Into Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers