Allahabad HC quashes KGMU associate professor's termination, orders reinstatement

Lucknow: Granting relief to an Associate Professor at King George's Medical University (KGMU), the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court recently quashed her termination, holding that the departmental inquiry held against her was not in accordance with the prescribed rules and principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the HC bench comprising Justice Pankaj Bhatia issued directions to KGMU to reinstate Dr Singh and extend consequential service benefits to her, including payment of arrears of salary.

Case Background: 

The case arose from the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the doctor in 2020, when she was working as an Associate Professor (non-medical) at KGMU's Molecular Biology Laboratory.

The controversy started in May 2019 when the Head of the Pathology Department submitted a confidential report alleging that the proposal by the petitioner was similar to a project submitted by another faculty. The petitioner denied the allegations and subsequently issued legal notices of defamation against the HoD and the other faculty.

A vigilance report dated August 31, 2019, recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner and thereafter, KGMU served a charge-sheet dated January 1, 2020 containing four charges against the petitioner. These charges alleged misconduct, insubordination, attempt to steal intellectual property rights, unauthorized pressure by issuing legal notices, and vitiating the academic atmosphere under Section 41(D) and Rule 10.07(3) of the KGMU First Statutes, 2011, as well as the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.

A six-member Disciplinary Committee was set up by KGMU to inquire into the charges. The petitioner, in turn, denied the charges, requested documents, sought to cross-examine key persons, and also requested legal assistance. However, her request for legal aid was rejected by the Disciplinary Committee, citing non-supply of required documents. 

Consequently, the committee submitted an ex-parte inquiry report on March 11, 2020, finding all charges proved against the petitioner without examining oral witnesses to prove documentary evidence. On the basis of this report, the Executive Council of KGMU passed a resolution terminating her services on June 10, 2020. She subsequently challenged the termination before the High Court.

Arguments before HC bench: 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Disciplinary Committee failed to adhere to Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. They also submitted that even in an ex-parte inquiry, the burden of proof lay on the employer, and documentary evidence must be proved through oral witnesses. 

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court orders in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd.

On the other hand, the counsel for KGMU argued that the petitioner deliberately boycotted the disciplinary proceedings despite receiving several opportunities. They also argued that the petitioner's directly submitting the project to NHM violated the mandatory ethical review guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) framed under Regulation 7.22 of the Indian Medical Council Regulations, 2002.

Observations by High Court: 

The HC bench examined the inquiry report and the decision-making process by the committee and observed that the charge-sheet was vague and the inquiry panel failed recording evidence to substantiate the allegations.

"The said charge, ex-facie, was vague in the sense that no specific allegation of misconduct were alleged against the petitioner, traceable to violation of Para-41 Rule 10.07(3). Even if it is presumed that they are traceable to the misconducts specified in the first statute in Para 41 Rule 10.07, the same had to be proved based upon the evidence, which were proposed to be led and as extracted in para 8 onwards in respect of each of the charge," observed the HC bench.

Further, the Court addressed that there was no oral evidence to prove the documentary exhibits during the ex-parte proceedings. "A perusal of the enquiry report, reveals that none of the evidences, proposed to be relied upon for proving the four charges levelled against the petitioner, were ever produced before the enquiry committee...Thus, while concluding the enquiry, no evidence whatsoever was led to prove the documents proposed to be used as an evidence for proving the charges levelled against the petitioner," observed the HC bench.

"There is yet another fault in the entire process as admittedly two former Judges of this Court were part of the enquiry committee and the petitioner’s request for legal help was neither permitted nor denied, did result in prejudice to the petitioner as, the allegations against the petitioner were relating to stealing of intellectual property as well as serving of a legal notice to exert pressure. As two Judges were part of the enquiry, the perception in the mind of the petitioner, who had no legal background, cannot be held to be unjustified and thus, the denial of legal representation through legally trained person by the disciplinary committee in its meeting held on 06.02.2020, cannot be justified and is ex-facie arbitrary," it further noted.

The bench also rejected KGMU's submission that the petitioner's non-participation condoned procedural lapses and held, "In the present case, the mandate of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules has not been followed scrupulously by the enquiry committee while concluding the enquiry against the petitioner. The contention of Dr *** that once the employee had not participated, would debar the petitioner from crying foul deserves to be rejected for the sole reason that even if the petitioner had not submitted a reply, the reply submitted by the petitioner could not amount to acceptance of charge and it was incumbent upon the enquiry committee to have concluded the enquiry in accordance with law specifically following Rule 7 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules and after following the principles of natural justice."

The High Court bench held that the termination order and the proceedings leading to it were arbitrary and contrary to law and accordingly quashed them. However, the bench granted KGMU the liberty to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry from the stage of submission of the doctor's reply.

The court directed that the fresh inquiry be conducted in accordance with Rule 7 of the applicable Discipline and Appeal Rules. The court further observed that if a legal expert is included in the reconstituted inquiry committee, the doctor would also be entitled to avail herself of legal assistance during the proceedings.

"In view of the reasoning recorded above, this court has no hesitation in holding that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner leading to the order of dismissal, suffers from vice of arbitrariness, not following the prescribed procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice and also arbitrarily discriminating the petitioner in defending herself in respect of the charges levelled. The decision making process adopted leading to the passing of dismissal order dated 10/09-06-2020 is clearly flawed and contrary to the Rules, as such, the same cannot be sustained and are quashed. The matter is remanded to the stage of filing reply by the petitioner to the charge-sheet. The inquiry committee (may if required to be reconstituted), shall once again conduct the enquiry after submission of the reply by the petitioner to all the charges. It is made clear that in case the reconstituted enquiry committee comprises of any Member having legal expertise, the petitioner would also be permitted to engage and take legal help while participating in the enquiry proceedings. It is further directed that in the event, the petitioner does not file a reply, the enquiry would still be required to be held strictly in terms of the mandate of Rule 7 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules and should be concluded in accordance with law," observed the HC bench.

"As the dismissal order dated 10/09-06-2020 has been set aside, the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequences of reinstatement with back wages. It will however, be open to the respondents to take work from the petitioner or not during the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, if the respondent choose to carry forward the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in terms of the liberty given by this court," the bench said.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/29/allahabad-hc-order-418519.pdf

Also Read: Allahabad HC Declares Unqualified Allopathic Practice as Quackery, Dismisses Electrohomeopathy Practitioner's Plea