Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Repeated Disobedience And Non-Adherence To Orders, Justifiable; Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a professor at a government university, stating that repeated disobedience of orders from superiors can't be taken lightly, as it promotes indiscipline and disorder.Justice Satyen Vaidya: “The repeated insubordination by the non-adherence to the orders of superiors, cannot be brushed aside lightly for it will inculcate indiscipline and disorderliness in a public institution like respondent- University”. Background Facts:The Petitioner, Dr. S.D. Sankhayan, was the Head of Department of Social Sciences at CSK H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya. However, due to multiple complaints against him, he was removed from the post, leading to several departmental inquiries.Pursuant to the first inquiry, he was reinstated as Head of Department. However, the Vice-Chancellor of the university was not satisfied with the inquiry as it was not conducted by the fact-finding officer. Subsequently, a retired IAS was appointed as the new Inquiry Officer, who conducted a fresh inquiry and the petitioner was discharged from his duties again. Aggrieved by the fresh inquiry, the petitioner filed an application before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and even though the inquiry was conducted no administrative action was taken as the tribunal had put a stay on the same. The university subsequently filed a miscellaneous application seeking the cancellation of the stay order. The Tribunal clarified that it had not restrained the university from initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner. Consequently, a regular inquiry was conducted, and its findings were placed before the Board of Management. Based on this, a notice was issued to the petitioner proposing dismissal from service.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a service appeal before the Chancellor of the University, which was dismissed. He then filed a review petition before the Chancellor again which was also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking reinstatement of his position, along with all consequential benefits.Contentions:The petitioner contended that the disciplinary inquiry against him was unfair as the Vice-Chancellor did not have the authority to initiate the proceedings or appoint the Inquiry Officer without the prior approval of the Board of Management. He contended that the charges were not proven, and even if assumed to be true, the punishment of compulsory retirement was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. In response, the University submitted that the original penalty of dismissal had been reduced to compulsory retirement after considering the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement, his long service record and family commitments. The University further contended that as per Section 48 of the H.P. University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 the Board Of Management was authorized to delegate powers to the Vice-Chancellor. Findings:The Court stated that under article 226 of the Constitution of India, it has restrictive jurisdiction and can only make sure that the decision-making process was conducted in a legal manner and can't examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It further observed that while going through the records no illegality was found in the decision-making process and the inquiry had been conducted in accordance the service rules of the university and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The charges proved against the petitioner are of insubordination and defiance on more than one occasion, which as per the rules of the University, constitute improper conduct. Regarding the petitioner's claim that the punishment was disproportionate, the Court held that the disciplinary authority has discretion to impose a suitable penalty based on the nature and gravity of misconduct.The Court held that “The repeated insubordination by the non-adherence to the orders of superiors, cannot be brushed aside lightly for it will inculcate indiscipline and disorderliness in a public institution like the University”. Thus, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of compulsory retirement. Case Name: Dr. S.D. Sankhayan v/s State of H.P. & Ors. Case No.: CWPOA No.734 of 2019Date of Decision: 09.05.2025For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shalini Thakur and Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shalini Thakur and Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocates. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1.Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Repeated Disobedience And Non-Adherence To Orders, Justifiable; Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Aggarwal

Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Repeated Disobedience And Non-Adherence To Orders, Justifiable; Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers