JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. Inflated egos lead to blowing up of minor incidents into major battles and result in the entire energy of the administrators and teachers being focused on legal battles, fighting with each other at the cost of the institution and the students. 2. This case is a typical example of a small incident being blown up out of proportion both by the petitioner and the Head of the Institution leading to the termination of the services of the petitioner and a long drawn out legal battle. They have made a mountain out of a mole hill. 3. The petitioner is a highly qualified teacher of English. She after doing her M. Phil has also obtained a Doctorate in English and is a Fellow of the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies. She joined the National Institute of Technology, which is one of the premier institute in the State of Himachal Pradesh, as Lecturer on 08.08.1986. She has admittedly been working since then in the said institute and without any complaint. 4. The petitioner was granted Selection Grade as Lecturer in October, 1998. On completion of eight years after grant of selection grade, i.e. in the year 2006, the petitioner applied for the post of Professor in the Department of Applied Science and Humanities under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the CAS). A communication was addressed to her on 16.07.2007 where she was informed that with reference to her application, she was to appear in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor/Professor in Applied Science and Humanities on 17.07.2007 before the Selection Committee in the office of the Director, National Institute of Technology. 5. This is where the trouble started. According to the petitioner, though she had requested that she be permitted to attend a conference at Vancouver in Canada to be held in the month of August, respondent No. 2, Professor I.K. Bhat, who was then the Director of the National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, did not permit her to attend that conference, but permitted her to attend only one conference at Paris, which was to take place from 17th to 20th July, 2007. In the meantime, an interview letter was issued to her asking her to appear in the interview on 17th July, 2007. 6. In the meantime, an interview letter was issued to her asking her to appear in the interview on 17th July, 2007. 6. The petitioner has made very long winded arguments as to how she was humiliated and the interview date was fixed in such a manner that she was kept in the dark till the last moment, but the fact is that on 16th July she was informed that she had to appear in the interview on 17th July, 2007. She had, in fact, on 7th July, 2007, sent an e-mail to respondent No. 2 thanking him for rescheduling her interview for 17th July. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention. 7. It appears that though the petitioner had applied for the post of Professor, the Selection Committee, before whom she was interviewed, considered her for the post of Assistant Professor and not Professor. This led to some arguments between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, Director of the Institution. According to the petitioner, Professor I.K. Bhat misbehaved with her and she was denied her legitimate right of being considered for the post of Professor. She also alleges that respondent No. 2 not only misbehaved with her but refused to answer her questions or address her concerns. According to her, this was done with a view to harass her. 8. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor/Professor under the CAS and the Selection Committee considered her for the post of Assistant Professor as she was not eligible for the post of Professor. According to the respondents, to be eligible for the post of Professor, a person must have eight years service as Assistant Professor. I am not going into this question at this stage because before this Court this question is not directly involved. The stand of the respondents is that it was the petitioner, who misbehaved with the Director. She tried to assault the Director, rebuked, scolded and threatened him and created an abnormal situation outside the office of the Director between 5.15 p.m. to 6 p.m. According to the Director, she even tried to stop the Director from coming out of his office, tried to catch hold of the Director by his hand and used unparliamentary language against him. It is alleged that she tried to jump from the administrative block to the blank square in the ground floor in order to cause harm to herself but certain members of the staff prevented her from doing so. 9. As per the respondents, on 18.07.2007, a proposal was sent by the Director for initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, article of charges were framed against her. Departmental inquiry was held which was conducted by Mr. Inder Ram, a retired Additional District Judge, who vide his report, Annexure P-11, dated 23.10.2008, held that article of Charge No. 1 of the charge stood proved, but came to the conclusion that article of Charge No. 2 has not been proved. Thereafter, a copy of the report was supplied to the petitioner and she was asked to give her comments to the same. She submitted a representation against the same to the Board. The Board of Governors gave her a personal hearing and after considering her representation, the Board of Governors of NIT imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. 10. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the said order, but directly approached this Court. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the petition should be dismissed and the petitioner should be directed to file an appeal. However, keeping in view the fact that the petition was filed in the year 2009, it was admitted and the fact that the petitioner finally argued the matter in person and has taken me through the entire documents, I feel that it is a fit case where this Court may decide the matter without relegating the petitioner to file an appeal. 11. The first contention raised before this Court on behalf of the petitioner is that the bias against her is writ large because of the fact that the proceedings have been ante dated. Her grievance is that, in fact, it was she, who sent a complaint to the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women complaining of gender discrimination. According to the petitioner, after the interview on 17th July, 2007, she left for Delhi and then went to Paris. After she returned from Paris, she sent this complaint and it was only after this complaint was sent that the proposal, Annexure P-3, was mooted by respondent No. 2 to initiate departmental action against her. According to the petitioner, after the interview on 17th July, 2007, she left for Delhi and then went to Paris. After she returned from Paris, she sent this complaint and it was only after this complaint was sent that the proposal, Annexure P-3, was mooted by respondent No. 2 to initiate departmental action against her. According to her, no such document was sent on 18.07.2007 and these documents were sent much later. 12. In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the fact that there is no date below the signatures of respondent No. 2, who has also described himself to be the Member Secretary of the Board of Governors. She has also relied upon the fax confirmation report in which the date given in August 1. I am afraid that this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because there is contemporaneous material on record to support the version of the respondent-Institute. On 17th July itself at 6.30 p.m., a communication was sent on behalf of the Registrar, NIT Hamirpur, to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hamirpur, which reads as follows: To The Station House Officer Police Station Hamirpur (HP) Subject: Information regarding creating nuisance /threatening & defiling of tranquil atmosphere by Dr. (Smt.) Saroj Thakur Lect. in English (SG) NIT, Hamirpur (HP). Dear Sir, Regarding the matter as above, it is informed that the said faculty appeared in the interview conducted by the Institution today at about 11:30 AM in the chamber of Director NIT Hamirpur for promotion under CAS as per the Govt. of India instructions and schemes. The said faculty member appeared in the interview as scheduled. Suddenly, at about 4:30 PM she came and stood in front of the office of the Director, NIT Hamirpur and arrogantly started rebuking, scolding to the Registrar/Director their PAs and other office staff who have been associated in the interview process. She created abnormal situation from about 5:15 PM to about 6 PM in the office and put obstructions and disturbances in the normal working and also in the on going interviews of other categories of the Institution. She became very furious, hostile and tried to stop the Registrar/Director other office staff members to come out from their office premises. She also tried to jump from Admn. Block to blank square in the ground floor in order to commit harm to herself and it were Dr. She became very furious, hostile and tried to stop the Registrar/Director other office staff members to come out from their office premises. She also tried to jump from Admn. Block to blank square in the ground floor in order to commit harm to herself and it were Dr. Raman Parti, Dr. Anoop Kumar, other security guards and staff members to prevent her in doing so who had gathered on hearing the shouting. She threatened that from tomorrow she will repeat & do the same thing and said that who will stop her in doing this. This is for your information and immediate necessary in the matter. sd/- REGISTRAR NIT HAMIRPUR 13. It is not denied that this letter was sent to the police on the said date. Basically there are two allegations in this letter. Firstly, that at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner stood in front of the office of the Director and rebuked and scolded the Registrar, the Director, their PAs and other staff members, who had been associated in the interview process. She also obstructed in the normal working, became furious and tried to stop the Registrar/Director from coming out of the office. She also tried to jump from the administrative block to the blank square on the ground floor with a view to harm herself. This is the first version of the respondent. 14. Article No. I, which was framed against her reads as follows: ARTICLE-I That on 17th July 2007, Smt. (Dr.) Saroj Thakur the then Lecturer (SG), now Assistant Professor in English, Deptt. of Applied Science & Humanities, NIT Hamirpur came at 5:15 PM in front of the offices of Director and Registrar and stood there and started rebuking, scolding and threatening the Registrar and Director and their PA's and other office staff who were associated in the interview process with malafide intention and ulterior motive in order to humiliate, tarnish and damage the reputation of said officers and officials. She used insulting and abusive language against the above deliberately, intentionally and knowingly. She also created abnormal situation from 5:15 PM to 6:00 PM in the office and put obstructions and hindrances in the normal working of the Institution. She used insulting and abusive language against the above deliberately, intentionally and knowingly. She also created abnormal situation from 5:15 PM to 6:00 PM in the office and put obstructions and hindrances in the normal working of the Institution. She acted as very hostile and tried to stop the Registrar and Director and other office staff to come out from their offices and caught the Director by his hand and shirt calling by him bad names. She tried to jump from the Admn. Block to blank square on the ground floor. These acts and conducts of Smt. (Dr.) Saroj Thakur, amount to unbecoming of a NIT Hamirpur faculty and has been found in gross violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964m (3) (1) (iii) as further clarified by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Deptt. of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, 3rd Edition, 1980 below rule 3 ibid vide para 23 (7) acts and conducts amounting to misconduct and 23 (4) acts and omissions amounting to misconduct which render her liable for disciplinary action. There is a definite improvement in this. There was no allegation in the first complaint made to the police that she tried to catch the Director by his hand and shirt or that she called him by bad names. 15. Normally, the Writ Court does not go into the entire evidence and the factual matrix of the case, but since the petitioner was arguing in person, I have gone through the entire record to satisfy my judicial conscious. 16. The petitioner has pointed out that in the original complaint, there was no allegation that she tried to catch hold of the Director. In the Article of Charge, it is alleged that she caught the Director by his hand and shirt, whereas in the memorandum put up for initiating disciplinary action, it was mentioned that she tried to catch the Director by his hand and shirt. She submits that these improvements clearly show that respondent No. 2 was inimical to her and had ensured that the agenda was prepared in such a manner which shows that he was bias against her. 17. She also submits that respondent No. 2, Professor I.K. Bhat, was taking active interest in the entire matter from the stage of initiating the first report against the petitioner to the stage of framing of charge sheet. 17. She also submits that respondent No. 2, Professor I.K. Bhat, was taking active interest in the entire matter from the stage of initiating the first report against the petitioner to the stage of framing of charge sheet. According to her, his biased is writ large and, therefore, the entire proceedings should be quashed. 18. I had summoned the entire original record and I find that at the relevant time, the Director of the Institute was also the ex-officio Member Secretary of the Board of Governors. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural in his being part of the initial meetings, which took place. It is obvious that the complaint had to be filed by him. He, therefore, wore a number of hats. He was the complainant, the Director as well as the Secretary of the Board of Governors. As such, his involvement to a certain extent was bound to be there, but only question is whether he acted like Judge, Jury and Prosecutor as alleged by the petitioner. 19. I have gone through the entire record and I find that on 18th July, 2007, respondent No. 2, Professor I.K. Bhat, sent a communication alleging that the petitioner had rebuked, scolded and threatened him, used abusive language and has tried to catch him from his hand and called him by bad names. She had also tried to jump from the administrative block to the blank square on the ground floor. The only question is whether this communication has been ante dated or not. The petitioner alleges that this was sent on 1st August, 2007 and makes reference to confirmation report of fax, but it appears that the confirmation report is the response sent by the Engineer, Rama Nand Sharma, Project Manager, Soni Ericsson, who was one of the members of the Board of Governors. 20. From the original record, I find that on 19th July, 2007, itself, Dr. Rakesh Kumar had approved the proposal of the Director to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Similarly Dr. Surendra Prasad had agreed to the proposal of the Director on 25th July, 2007. This clearly shows that the apprehension of the petitioner that the proceedings were prepared after she filed complaint to the National Commission for Women and were ante dated is totally misconceived. 21. The petitioner has also alleged that on 17th September, 2007, it is Mr. Surendra Prasad had agreed to the proposal of the Director on 25th July, 2007. This clearly shows that the apprehension of the petitioner that the proceedings were prepared after she filed complaint to the National Commission for Women and were ante dated is totally misconceived. 21. The petitioner has also alleged that on 17th September, 2007, it is Mr. G.R. Bharti, who is shown as Member Secretary and, therefore, according to her, respondent No. 2, Professor I.K. Bhat, could not have been the Member Secretary. I have perused the record and found that in the meantime, National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 came into force on 5th June, 2007 and as per Section 18(2) of this Act, the Registrar was to act as the Secretary of the Board of Governors. Prior to this, it was the Director, who were the Secretary and this practice may have continued thereafter for a month or two. 22. I have perused the minutes of 17th September, 2007, especially Item No. T-12 and find that the Board of Governors took a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and Dr. I.K. Bhat did take part in the proceedings. The Chairman of the Board of Governors was authorized to appoint the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, as per the Rules. The Director proposed that Chaudhary Inder Ram, retired Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, be appointed as Inquiry Officer and Mr. P.C. Katoch, Assistant Registrar, be appointed as Presenting Officer. A proposal in this regard was sent to the Chairman, Board of Governors and was approved by him. The Board of Governors, in its meeting held on 7th April, 2008, approved the charge sheet against the petitioner. 23. The petitioner filed a representation to the Board of Governors praying that the memo dated 1st October, 2007, be withdrawn and that she may be given a personal hearing. The Board of Governors sent a communication to her and intimated her that she may present her case before the Board of Governors whenever it meets next and in the next meeting of the Board of Governors held on 7th April, 2008, this item was put before the Board of Governors and the petitioner was given the opportunity of hearing personally before the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors directed her to defend her case before the Inquiry Officer and the Board of Governors did not feel it fit to hear her case when the inquiry was in progress. 24. The petitioner again made representation to the Board of Governors for another personal hearing, but this was rejected. The inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and, thereafter, the Board of Governors directed that a copy of report be sent to the delinquent officer to submit her representation against the same in its meeting held on 15th December, 2008. Again, Mr. Bhat was present in this meeting. 25. However, when the final decision on the report was to be taken in the meeting of the Board of Governors held on 13th June, 2009, when the impugned order was passed, Dr. I.K. Bhat and Dr. J.N. Sharma, who were directly related to the case were asked to withdraw from the meeting and the petitioner was given a personal hearing in their absence. The Board of Governors, thereafter, considered all the objections of the petitioner in detail pointwise and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct and misbehaviour and, therefore, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. 26. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that Dr. I.K. Bhat being a member of Board of Governors took part in the meetings and deliberations of the Board of Governors. There is no doubt that Mr. I.K. Bhat took part in the meetings when the proceedings were being initiated. He also proposed the name of the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, but these were finally approved by the Chairman. It may have been better if Professor I.K. Bhat had recused from taking part in any of the proceedings, but I find that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The case against the petitioner as set out by Professor I.K. Bhat was clearly mentioned in the communication dated 18.07.2007. There is no change in that. The framing of the charge sheet etc. were formalities in which Professor I.K. Bhat had no active role to play. The Board of Governors of the Institute consists of very high ranking and eminent persons and it is not as if Professor I.K. Bhat could have moulded the opinion of the other members. In the most important meeting, Professor Bhat did not take part. were formalities in which Professor I.K. Bhat had no active role to play. The Board of Governors of the Institute consists of very high ranking and eminent persons and it is not as if Professor I.K. Bhat could have moulded the opinion of the other members. In the most important meeting, Professor Bhat did not take part. He definitely did not take part in the inquiry except as a witness. 27. The inquiry was conducted not by an official of the NIT, but by a retired Additional District Judge. Therefore, I find that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even if Professor Bhat had taken part in some of the meetings of the Board of Governors. As mentioned earlier, no doubt the Director was complainant, but he being the Director initially was even the Member Secretary, but, thereafter, it was the Registrar alone, who was to be the Member Secretary. 28. The next point raised by the petitioner is that the proceedings were not properly conducted by the Inquiry Officer and that she has been prejudiced because the Inquiry Officer was also biased against her. 29. I have gone through the inquiry in detail and I found that, in fact, it was the petitioner, who was raising totally trivial and technical objections at every stage of the proceedings. Firstly, she objected to the Registrar of the Institute acting as Secretary of the Board of Governors. She, thereafter, kept praying for deferment of the inquiry on the ground that she wanted to present her case before the Board of Governors. She was given a number of opportunities even to name her defence assistance. She was given the opportunity of inspecting all the documents and supplied copies of all the documents required by her. I find that the inquiry has been conducted in a proper manner and there is no infirmity in the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. 30. However, on the merits, there is some merit in the allegation of the petitioner. Article of Charge No. 1 has already been quoted above. PW-1, Dr. Anoop Kumar, states that he saw the petitioner Dr. Saroj Thakur, trying to jump over the railing in front of the office of the Director, NIT and that she was making a lot of noise. He stopped her from doing so and she seem to be very agitated. Article of Charge No. 1 has already been quoted above. PW-1, Dr. Anoop Kumar, states that he saw the petitioner Dr. Saroj Thakur, trying to jump over the railing in front of the office of the Director, NIT and that she was making a lot of noise. He stopped her from doing so and she seem to be very agitated. He and other persons present there tried to calm the petitioner and then her husband was called. This witness clearly stated that the petitioner did not catch the Director either from his hand or shirt nor called him any bad names in his presence. According to him, the Director was not present when he came to the spot. 31. PW-2, Dr. Raman Parti is Head of the Civil Engineering Department. According to him, at about 5.15 pm, he saw that PW-1, Dr. Anoop Kumar, was stopping the petitioner from going towards the railing. She was crying and due to this noise, there was a lot of chaos. The petitioner was highly agitated. After fifteen minutes, the husband of the petitioner came. 32. PW-3, P.S. Kanwar, was the Private Secretary to the Director. According to him, at about 4.00 pm, the petitioner came to his office, which was adjacent to the chamber of the Director and told him that he was playing politics and threatened him. She was highly agitated and in hot temper. According to him, the petitioner went inside the chamber of the Director and created a ruckus. His allegation is that the petitioner was stating that the Director was not the King of the institution and was only a public servant. She was asking the Director to show her the result of the interview, which the Director refused to do since the same was still under consideration. In the meantime, the Registrar came into the chamber. The petitioner sat at the door of the chamber and the Director could not go outside the door and the petitioner tried to catch hold the Director from his shoulder and then the Director went out through the room of the Private Secretary. Thereafter, she tried to jump down from the gallery to the blank square on the ground. 33. PW-4, B.R. Sharma, was the Personal Assistant to the Registrar. Thereafter, she tried to jump down from the gallery to the blank square on the ground. 33. PW-4, B.R. Sharma, was the Personal Assistant to the Registrar. According to him, he heard a lot of noise and when he came out of his office, he saw the petitioner sitting in the main door of the Director's chamber. Despite entreaties of the Director and Registrar, she did not calm down. According to this witness, she caught hold of the Director from his collar and she was very furious. The Director went out through the room of his Private Secretary. 34. PW-8, Dr. J.N. Sharma, was the Chief Vigilance Officer and Dean(Academic) of the NIT Hamirpur. According to him, he heard a noise and saw that a lot of people had gathered in the waiting hall attached to the room of the Director. The petitioner was in an agitated condition. She told the witness that she had been treated unfairly. According to him, he tried to calm her down and, thereafter, her husband came. It would be pertinent to mention that this witness reached much later, almost at about 6.00 pm. 35. PW-9, Dr. Y.D. Sharma, Head, Department of Applied Science and Humanities states that at about 5.30 pm, when he was sitting in the canteen, he received a call from PW-2, Dr. Raman Parti, calling him to the office of the Director. He reached there and found that many people had gathered there. The petitioner was shouting loudly. She appeared to be in a disturbed condition and people were trying to pacify her. He states that this was the first time that he saw the petitioner in such a condition. 36. PW-12, I.P. Singh is the Head of Department of Architecture. He also states that he saw the petitioner catching the railing in front of the office of the Director, while her leg was hanging outside the railing. He rushed by stairs and by that time, respondent No. 2, Professor I.K. Bhat, was going down stairs in a normal manner. The petitioner had been caught hold of by one Mr. Soni and some other faculty members, who prevented her from jumping off. 37. Professor I.K. Bhat was examined as PW-13. According to him, at about 5.00 pm, the petitioner entered his chamber and wanted to know the outcome of the interview. The petitioner had been caught hold of by one Mr. Soni and some other faculty members, who prevented her from jumping off. 37. Professor I.K. Bhat was examined as PW-13. According to him, at about 5.00 pm, the petitioner entered his chamber and wanted to know the outcome of the interview. He informed her that the recommendations of the Selection Committee were confidential. But, she was adamant, rude and insisting that she be shown the recommendations of the Interview Committee. When he wanted to leave the chamber, she blocked the door and prevented him from going out. When he tried to cross the door, she caught him by his collar. Thereafter, he was escorted by the staff from the other door through the room of the Private Secretary. 38. The petitioner, while cross-examining this witness, asked a question as to whether she was eligible for the post of Professor in accordance with the certain clarifications given, but these questions were disallowed by the Inquiry Officer. In my opinion, the Inquiry Officer should not have disallowed these questions, but finally they will have no impact on the end result of the case. 39. It would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner herself put a suggestion to Mr. Bhat that the Registrar has lodged a complaint with the local police about the incident. The petitioner also made some reference to the resolutions passed by the Teachers Association and Employees Association, but in my view those are totally irrelevant for deciding the matter in hand. 40. The petitioner also examined some evidence. DW-1, Mr. Fauja Singh, states that no action was taken on the complaint of the Registrar, since no cognizable offence was made out. The other witness only states that they did not see the petitioner doing anything and that they had signed the resolution, Ex. DA, condemning the conduct of the petitioner, but they were not clear whether any meeting of the faculty was held or not. 41. The petitioner appeared as DW-9. According to her, the Director was prejudiced against her since she had taken recourse to legal proceedings when she was denied a Type-V house. According to her, the Director purposely approved her tour for Paris since it would clash with the interview, but she admits that she appeared in the interview and then went to Paris also. According to her, the Director was prejudiced against her since she had taken recourse to legal proceedings when she was denied a Type-V house. According to her, the Director purposely approved her tour for Paris since it would clash with the interview, but she admits that she appeared in the interview and then went to Paris also. She submits that she has only applied for the post of Professor and not for Assistant Professor. According to her, after she appeared in the interview and was going through her papers, she found that her complete and proper bio-data had not been put before the Interview Board. She was wrongly shown to be due for promotion as Assistant Professor and not Professor. She, thereafter, went to meet Experts, Professor Jafri and Professor Nayer, who told her that she had been interviewed for the post of Assistant Professor. She, thereafter, sent to the office of the Director. According to her, she sat for an hour and half, was exchanging a light talk and was in a good mood. In the meantime, Mr. G.R. Bharti, Registrar of the Institute, came to the chamber of Mr. P.S. Kanwar and he assured that if Professor I.K. Bhat agrees, they would re-interview her for the post of Professor. According to her, she apprised Professor I.K. Bhat of her concern and requested that she be again interviewed for the post of Professor. She told him that she had documents to show that she had been interviewed for the post of Assistant Professor and not Professor. It was Professor I.K. Bhat who flared up and shouted at her. She further states that he used very derogatory and abusive language against her. She denied that she caught hold of the Director by his hand and shirt. She states that she was agitated and was crying and weeping and shaken. According to her, she might have stood near the railing holding it, but she does not remember whether she tried to jump from the railing or not. She then did go to Paris. 42. She was cross-examined at length. She admits that according to the Rules, she could have allowed to undertake only one foreign trip. She has also admitted that she has sent an e-mail dated 7th July, 2007, to the Director thanking him for his efforts to fix her interview for 17th July, 2007. She then did go to Paris. 42. She was cross-examined at length. She admits that according to the Rules, she could have allowed to undertake only one foreign trip. She has also admitted that she has sent an e-mail dated 7th July, 2007, to the Director thanking him for his efforts to fix her interview for 17th July, 2007. She also states that it may be correct that she had been considered by the Interview Board for the post of Professor and Assistant Professor, but according to her, there should have been two separate Interviewing Boards for the two posts and that she was only interviewed for the post of Assistant Professor. 43. I have discussed the entire evidence in detail. From the evidence, the following facts are clearly emerge: 1. That the petitioner was agitated because she felt that injustice had been meted out to her as she had not been interviewed for the post of Professor. 2. That she felt that the administration including the Director had been unfair to her in not interviewing her for the post of Professor. 3. That she went to Director's office. This fact is admitted. 4. That there was a heated exchanged in the Director's office. 5. That, thereafter, the Director, Professor I.K. Bhat, left his room through the room of his Private Secretary. 6. It stands proved that the petitioner had stood and blocked door way preventing the Director from leaving his room from his own main door. 7. That, thereafter, the petitioner raised a hue and cry. 8. That the petitioner then attempted to jump off the railing and was prevented to do so by PW-1. 9. That she was later calmed and then her husband came and took her back to her house. 10. That despite all this happening, the petitioner proceeded to Delhi and then went to attend the conference at Paris. 44. At this stage, as already stated by me above, I am not deciding the issue as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be interviewed for the post of Professor or not. However, assuming that she had a right to be considered for such post, I am of the considered view that it did not behave a person of the rank of Selection Grade Lecturer being a senior faculty member to create a scene in the college. However, assuming that she had a right to be considered for such post, I am of the considered view that it did not behave a person of the rank of Selection Grade Lecturer being a senior faculty member to create a scene in the college. Once she went to the office of the Director and assuming that he told that he would do nothing more in the matter, she should have not raised a hue and cry but should have filed a representation in writing or taken recourse to legal proceedings. She had no business to raise her voice or turn hysterical as she did. 45. It is clear that a large number of students alongwith their parents were present when the petitioner created a scene and tried to jump off the railing into the vacant square below. If PW-1 had not intervened, things could have been much worse. Every person faces adversities in life. These adversities have to be faced with fortitude and stoicness. The petitioner, it appears that, is highly emotional and highly strung and she went into a fit of anger and became emotionally charged in a manner not befitting a teacher. To this extent, I am in agreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer. 46. However, I am clearly of the view that the Inquiry Officer gravely erred in holding that the petitioner had, in any manner, used rude or abusive language or had caught hold of the Director by his arm. The Director, when he appeared in the witness box, did not specify what were the words used by the petitioner. He only made a general statement that she was adamant and rude. This would not amount to using abusive language. However, from the statements of the witnesses, it is obvious that the petitioner did block the way of the Director preventing him to leave the door and in that process, she could have touched him, but this cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered to be an attempt to attack the Director. Her behaviour may not have been proper, but it cannot be said that she wanted to cause any harm to the Director. In my opinion, it also stands proved that the petitioner had created a scene and had tried to jump off the gallery. All this, in my opinion, is behaviour unbecoming of a Professor. 47. Her behaviour may not have been proper, but it cannot be said that she wanted to cause any harm to the Director. In my opinion, it also stands proved that the petitioner had created a scene and had tried to jump off the gallery. All this, in my opinion, is behaviour unbecoming of a Professor. 47. The petitioner alleges that the non-examination of Mr. G.R. Bharti has prejudiced her. This contention, in my opinion, cannot be accepted, since there is nothing which prevented her from calling Mr. G.R. Bharti as her own witness, if she so desired. 48. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I would hold that the Inquiry Officer erred in holding that Article-I stood fully proved against the petitioner. What has been proved is that she created a scene, blocked the door, preventing the Director from going outside and also tried to jump off the railing of the gallery into the blank square on the ground floor. Her allegation that the Director had misbehaved with her seems to be an afterthought, since in the reply sent by her on 24.10.2007 to the show cause notice, she has not stated any such fact. Merely because the persons who deposed against her are junior to Professor I.K. Bhat is not sufficient to hold that they were bound to give evidence against her. In fact, most of them have given evidence in her favour. They are also the colleagues of the petitioner and I find no reason why they should have given false evidence against her. 49. Next coming to the question of quantum of penalty imposed upon the petitioner, as observed by me at the very beginning, this was not such a big incident and should have been settled at the earliest. Inflated egos of both the petitioner and the Director came in the way of such an amicable settlement. It would have much better if before initiating disciplinary proceedings, the Board of Governors had made an attempt to get the matter settled. But, the petitioner is also to blame. She did not care to apologize. Even if, injustice had been caused to her, she had no business of behaving in the manner she did. An apology does not hurt anybody and I am sure if she had apologized, things would have come to an end at that stage itself. But, the petitioner is also to blame. She did not care to apologize. Even if, injustice had been caused to her, she had no business of behaving in the manner she did. An apology does not hurt anybody and I am sure if she had apologized, things would have come to an end at that stage itself. I also find that the conduct of the petitioner during the inquiry proceedings has been obstructive. She has levelled all sort of baseless allegations against all and sundry. She has spared none. 50. Be that as it may, I feel that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate to her misconduct. This is not a case of an employee acting dishonestly. The petitioner felt, justifiably or not, that she had not been treated fairly and in a proper manner. She was highly agitated. Though, one cannot defend the manner in which she behaved, she appears to have become highly volatile because she felt that she should have been interviewed for the post of Professor and not Assistant Professor. This was not a case where the petitioner should have been compulsorily retired and removed from service, but a lesser punishment should have been imposed upon her. 51. It is not for this Court to impose punishment or decide the quantum of punishment. Therefore, this petition is partly allowed and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement is set aside. It is hoped that better sense prevails on both sides. If so advised, the petitioner may apologize to the Institution and Professor I.K. Bhat and I am sure, if she submits such an apology, the Board of Governors will take a much more sympathetic view. Even if she does not apologize, then also penalty of compulsory retirement is totally disproportionate and the Board of Governors should re-consider this aspect and impose a lesser punishment proportionate to the misdemeanor and misconduct of the petitioner. 52. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.