Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 345 (DEL)

PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA v. PROF. DEEPAK PENTAL

2007-02-19

REKHA SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Rekha Sharma, J. (Oral)- This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2006 whereby the respondent has constituted a Committee of four members to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner levelled by Dr. Daman Saluja, Director (Offg) ACBR, University of Delhi. Delhi. On 28.11.2006, when the writ petition was taken up for preliminary hearing, a request was made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent be restrained from taking any decision against the petitioner on the basis of the report which the said Committee would be submitting. The said request was declined on the ground that the Committee constituted by the respondent was only a fact finding Committee. The petitioner has now filed the present application being CM No. 1867/2007 stating that the Committee has since submitted its report to the Executive Council of the University and the Executive Council is likely to take a decision thereon. Therefore, it has been prayed that the Executive Council should be restrained from considering the report of the Committee till the present writ petition is disposed of. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has reiterated before me that the Committee constituted by the respondent vide letter dated 21.11.2006 was only a fact finding Committee and the Executive Council before whom the report of the Committee has been placed would only be considering whether a show-cause notice on the basis of the report is called for or not. In this view of the matter, the apprehension of the petitioner that he might be removed from the service is unfounded. As a matter of fact, because of the statement made by the Counsel for the respondent. nothing survives in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner will be free to challenge the order which the Executive Council may pass after considering the report of the Committee in case he feels aggrieved by the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has another grievance also and it is that he too has made a complaint against Dr. Daman Saluja which the respondent is not considering. The respondent is directed to look into the complaint against Dr. Daman Saluja as well. 3. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 4. The date of 9.7.2007 is cancelled. Writ Petition disposed of.