Allahabad High Court Quashes Termination of Gautam Buddha University Staff Officer, Calls Proceedings Malafide and Without Evidence
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, quashed the termination order dated 14.12.2024 passed against Staff Officer to the Vice Chancellor of Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida. The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as Staff Officer, holding that the proceedings leading to her dismissal were tainted by mala fides and lacked any material evidence. The dispute centered around allegations of submission of a forged Ph.D. degree and use of the salutation “Dr.”, with the Court finding that no undue benefit was derived and that disciplinary proceedings had been motivated by bias.
The petitioner was initially appointed on 08.07.2010 as Private Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of Gautam Buddha University on a contractual basis. Her appointment was later regularized by order dated 13.04.2018. Subsequently, she was promoted as Staff Officer to the Vice Chancellor on 18.09.2018 after fulfilling the eligibility criteria of graduation, five years of continuous service in the University, and a good record of work. Records indicated that between 2010 and 2017, she received the remark of “outstanding” in her annual assessment for seven years, and “good” for one year.
On 18.08.2020, the petitioner was suspended following a legal notice alleging irregularities in her appointment and promotion. A First Information Report was lodged against her under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, but investigation culminated in a closure report on 09.07.2021. Multiple departmental enquiries were conducted, with the petitioner repeatedly denied the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses or present her defense fully.
The proceedings included three successive termination orders dated 30.10.2022, 02.03.2023, and 27.06.2023, each of which was quashed by the High Court in separate writ petitions. On each occasion, the Court directed the University to reconsider the matter, granting the petitioner opportunities to reply and for proceedings to be concluded in accordance with law. Despite these directions, the University proceeded to constitute an external three-member committee in 2024, comprising a retired District Judge, a Supreme Court Advocate, and a faculty member. Based on the report of this committee dated 08.11.2024, the Registrar of the University issued a fresh termination order on 14.12.2024.
The petitioner challenged this fourth termination order, arguing that the allegations were unfounded and that the disciplinary proceedings were motivated by malice. She contended that she never submitted a Ph.D. degree, had only indicated that she was pursuing such studies, and had derived no benefit from using the salutation “Dr.”. She also claimed the proceedings were initiated in retaliation after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against the then Officiating Registrar, Mr. S.N. Tiwari, on 06.08.2020.
The University argued that the petitioner had produced a forged Ph.D. certificate and misrepresented herself as a doctorate holder, amounting to grave misconduct. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents which held that fraud vitiates all proceedings and that producing fake degrees constitutes a serious breach of trust.
It was recorded that “the petitioner has merely stated that she is pursuing Ph.D.. At no stage has she either produced any document or made a categorical claim that she had completed Ph.D. course. The alleged fact was specifically denied before the enquiry officer as well. Despite this, the petitioner has been held guilty of misconduct. Such a finding cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
The Court noted that proceedings against the petitioner commenced only after she lodged a complaint against the Registrar on 06.08.2020. It recorded that “this sequence of events unmistakably reflects the conduct of the Registrar, who continued in service with the University, whereas the petitioner has been removed from employment.”
On the issue of whether her reference to Ph.D. studies or use of the salutation “Dr.” had impacted her career progression, the Court quoted from the enquiry reports: “it is very difficult to establish that petitioner’s damnable attempt to show herself as Ph.D. degree holder had a significant role in her promotion as Staff Officer to the Vice Chancellor.” Similarly, the later report found that “in absence of any material which indicates that mere appendage of salutation ‘Dr.’ had any bearing on her regularization or promotion of employee…it is difficult to assume that any benefit in material terms have flown to her directly.”
The Court observed that “a mere assertion of pursuing higher studies does not amount to a false claim of possessing the said qualification. Unless there is a clear, deliberate, and conscious misrepresentation with intent to secure an undue advantage, the same cannot constitute misconduct.”
The Court further stated: “It is a clear case of unnecessary harassment of the petitioner, as all proceedings against her were initiated only after she lodged a complaint against the Registrar. Significantly, the proceedings were founded upon a complaint allegedly made by a person who, in fact, had not filed it.”
The Court found that the actions of the University reflected “a clear abuse of process and smacks of mala fides. The manner in which the petitioner has been proceeded against, despite the absence of any legal or factual basis, indicates that the action was not guided by bona fide considerations but was motivated by extraneous reasons with the sole object of victimising the petitioner.”
The High Court directed: “The order impugned dated 14.12.2024 passed by the Registrar, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar is quashed. The respondent University – Registrar, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar is directed to allow the petitioner to function as Staff Officer to Vice Chancellor.”
The Court expressed displeasure at the repeated disregard of its earlier orders, recording that “despite three rounds of litigation and the matter having been remitted, the concerned authorities, in utter disregard of this Court’s directions, proceeded to conduct a fresh enquiry with the sole object of punishing the petitioner without any justifiable cause.”
“With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Aishwarya Pratap Shahi, Advocate; Nipun Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate; Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate; C.S.C. (Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State); Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
Case Title: Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:164235
Case Number: Writ - A No. 3471 of 2025
Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
