Supreme Court today directed Delhi University not to appoint any retired Judge who was earlier on its panel, as an Inquiry Officer to probe any of its employees.
A bench of Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and C Nagappan said if such a retired Judge is engaged by the Disciplinary Authority of the University, the other party may allege bias against the Inquiry Officer and his reputation may be at stake.
"The University is directed not to engage any retired Judge of any Court, who was earlier a counsel of the University, as an Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against any of its employee.
"In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the view that if any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired Judge, is appointed as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair," the bench said.
The apex court's direction came during the hearing of a plea of Delhi University Professor Ramesh Chandra challenging two office memorandums issued by the varsity and the show cause notice issued to him.
The apex court held that departmental inquiries conducted against Chandra by retired Judge were in violation of rules of natural justice and his removal from the post cannot be upheld.
Reinstating Chandra to the post of Professor, the bench allowed 50 per cent of back wages to him from the date of his disengagement till the date of the judgment while directing that the aforesaid period be treated "on duty" for all purposes including seniority, increment, fixation of pay, retrial benefits, etc.
