JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Prayers in the amended writ petition read as follows: “i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing Memo No. 2831/1-1/2007-FRIU dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure No. 29) issued under the signatures of Sri A.K. Tripathi, Registrar FRI (Deemed University) and Order No. 3641/1-1/2007-FRI DU, dated 2nd December 2011, issued by the respondent no. 2 as Director FRI and Vice Chancellor of respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 32) and resolution no. 10/2011 passed by the Board of Management of Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University on 14th July, 2011 declaring all these orders/decisions totally illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice (inserted vide Hon’ble Court’s Order dated 8/6/2016). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by commanding the respondent no. 5 to initiate and take action against the second and third respondents for the illegalities/misuse and abuse of the powers committed by them and pass such order as this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice may deem fit and proper. iii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the appointment of the respondent no. 2 as Director General of ICFRE. iv. Issue an interim order or direction by staying the operation of the order issued vide Memo No. 2831/1-1/2007-FRIU dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure No. 29) issued under the signatures of Sri A.K. Tripathi, Registrar FRI (Deemed University) and Order No. 3641/1-1/2007-FRI DU, dated 2nd December 2011, issued by the respondent no. 2 as Director FRI and Vice Chancellor of respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 32) during the pendency of this writ petition.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner, while serving as a Lecturer, came to be appointed in the Indian Forest Service during 1978 and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre. He came to be promoted finally to the post of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the year 2008. In 1995, he was deputed to the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Government of India as Head of Non-Wood Forest product in Forest Research Institute (for short ‘F.R.I.’). He served there till 1997. He was repatriated during 2004 and promoted as Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai. Again, in 2006, he was posted on deputation to ICFRE, Dehradun, as Deputy Director General (Research), which post he held till 2011. He served there till 1997. He was repatriated during 2004 and promoted as Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai. Again, in 2006, he was posted on deputation to ICFRE, Dehradun, as Deputy Director General (Research), which post he held till 2011. He was posted as Director General In-Charge in the ICFRE in the month of August, 2009. He enrolled himself during 1996 as a student for Ph.D. Course in Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University in Non Wood Forest Product (N.W.F.P.) Division of F.R.I. Initially, petitioner chose his topic for Ph.D. as “Studies on the Chemical Nature of Celtis Australis with special reference to its Socio-Economic Importance in North West Himalaya”. Petitioner went to U.S.A. to undergo a specialized training by the Food and Agricultural Organization on the subject. On completion of his course, petitioner found that his technique would be very useful, if he apply for the pinus roxburghii in the Himalayan States. Therefore, he changed his topic to “Exploration of Bore Hole Method of Resin Tapping in Pinus Roxburghii Sarg” for his Ph.D. Course in 1998. Petitioner was only the Head of the Department and the Director of F.R.I. was someone else. He submitted his thesis on 18.12.2001 for pre thesis seminar and evaluation. He became the Director of the F.R.I. The file was submitted to the Director General ICFRE for appointment of examiners to evaluate his thesis. The Director General appointed two examiners. The Director General appointed Mr. M.C. Pande as a viva-voce examiner on 06.06.2002, who held the viva on 10.06.2002 in the presence of sixty Senior Scientists and Forests Officers. All the replies of the petitioner were to the utmost satisfaction of the examiner and all the Scholarly audience. The report of the examiner Mr. M.C. Pande shows that the petitioner was recommended for award of the Ph.D. degree and it was recommended as being very good and sincere efforts by the candidate. Later, the matter was placed before the Research Degree Committee (R.D.C.), which consisted of eight persons apart from the petitioner. Since, petitioner was incidentally the Director of F.R.I., he happened to chair the R.D.C. This meeting took place on 13.06.2002. A complaint came to be filed. It is submitted that petitioner submitted Annexure No. 7 explanation. The matter was placed before the Board of Management in its meeting held on 18.10.2004, which was chaired by Mr. Since, petitioner was incidentally the Director of F.R.I., he happened to chair the R.D.C. This meeting took place on 13.06.2002. A complaint came to be filed. It is submitted that petitioner submitted Annexure No. 7 explanation. The matter was placed before the Board of Management in its meeting held on 18.10.2004, which was chaired by Mr. R.P.S. Katwal, I.F.S., D.G., I.C.F.R.E. attended by ten other members. It was informed that the petitioner had chaired the meeting of the R.D.C. by virtue of his holding the post of Director of F.R.I. when his own case was being considered. Though, none of the Rules of the University were violated, it was decided that the case of the petitioner may be placed once again before the R.D.C. (Annexure No. 8). The minutes of new R.D.C. held on 10.11.2004 are to be found in Annexure No. 9. It approved the Ph.D. to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.06.2002. Petitioner was given Ph.D. degree by Annexure No. 10 dated 31.01.2005. Annexure No. 11 purports to be the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management dated 18.11.2005. In the said meeting of the Board of Management, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “2. Dr. A.N. Purohit, Ex Vice Chancellor, HNB Garhwal University desired that the Board of Management should appeal to the Ministry to review the entire case in the light of approval granted by new RDC regarding award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. This RDC was constituted independently and examined the evaluation reports and viva-voce reports of the examiners and having satisfied itself, approved the award of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. Sh. A.K. Goyal, IFS, DIG (RT) stated that the Ministry of Environment & Forests wanted to ensure that the prestige of the FRI (Deemed University) is not put to question by any public or private person. 3. The chairman referred to the minutes of the last meeting of BOM and expressed that the Board of Management agreed that there were some lapses. However, after clearance from the new RDC the matter should have come back to the Board of Management instead it was cleared for the award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. In principle all the members agreed that there are lapses in award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat and necessary steps may be taken to resolve the matter. However, after clearance from the new RDC the matter should have come back to the Board of Management instead it was cleared for the award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. In principle all the members agreed that there are lapses in award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat and necessary steps may be taken to resolve the matter. Resolution No. 1 The Board of Management having gone through the entire case resolved to authorize the Director General, ICFRE, the Chancellor of the FRI (Deemed University) to take a final decision on this matter.” 3. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that the matter was considered by one Mr. G.K. Prasad, who was also holding the post of the Director General. Annexure No. 12 reads as under: “DG. ICFRE In the BOM meeting of 18.11.2005 during discussion it has come out that the examination of the thesis has been done by examiners appointed with the approval of the D.G., ICFRE and not by Shri G.S. Rawat in his capacity as the DIR/ FRI. Further the question of chairing of the earlier RDC by Shri G.S. Rawat should stand Settled once a fresh RDC meeting has been convened on 10.11.2004 and recommended the award of grace. Presentation of the recommendation of RDC and its acceptance by the then DG ICFRE and chancellor of FRI deemed university is an administrative issue, which by putting to the BOM of 18.11.2005 completes the requirements of award of grace, so there is no need to differ from the earlier decision and this was the reason for arriving at the said conclusion. The above stand/facts may be communicated to DIG (R.T.) (Sd) [G.K. Prasad] 30.03.2006 [Sd] [DDG (Edu)] 03.04.2006” 4. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that a post of Director General ICFRE arose. A notification dated 16.10.2009 was issued. The petitioner also applied. Certain allegations were made against the second respondent. There is reference to meeting of the Search Selection Committee (Annexure No. 15). The second respondent was selected and Annexure No. 15A is produced in support thereof. It is contended that the second respondent has been selected though he has a criminal case pending against him for the alleged forgery for the purpose of cheating. Annexure No. 16 is the newspaper item. The second respondent was selected and Annexure No. 15A is produced in support thereof. It is contended that the second respondent has been selected though he has a criminal case pending against him for the alleged forgery for the purpose of cheating. Annexure No. 16 is the newspaper item. Petitioner came to be served with a legal notice (Annexure No. 17) to which he submitted reply (Annexure No. 18). The minutes of the meeting, which took place on 30.06.2011, are produced as Annexure No. 19. Annexure No. 20 is the order dated 16.08.2001 and Annexure No. 21 is the order dated 02.09.2011. There are allegations against the second respondent, which need not detain us. Suffice it to say that the petitioner came to be served with Annexure No. 29, which is Memo dated 02.09.2011. It reads as follows: “No. 2831/1-1/2007-FRIU Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University P.O.I.P.E. Kaulagarh Road Dehradun-248 195 Dated 02.09.2011 To, Sh. G.S. Rawat, IFS Ex-Ph. D. Scholar, FRI (Deemed) University Office of the PCCF, Panagal Building Saidapet Chennai-15 Sub: Award of Ph.D. degree-regarding. MEMO 1. Whereas, a complaint vide F.No. 7-5/2011 (CPP-I/DU) dated 9th June, 2011 was received from under Secretary, University Grant Commission (UGC) seeking comments on the complaint addressed to the then Minister of Environment and Forests, regarding award of Ph.D. Degree to himself by Sh. G.S. Rawat, IFS as Vice Chancellor, FRI (DU) Dehradun against UGC norms. 2. And whereas, letter dated 5th July 2011 was received from Chief Vigilance Officer, ICFRE stating that in view of propriety of academic rules and procedures, being an academic matter it may be placed before the Board of Management (BOM) in its forthcoming meeting. The reference was also received by ICFRE from MoEF vide the letter dated 22.03.2011. 3. And whereas, the issue of award of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat was placed before the meeting of Board of Management of FRI (Deemed) University held on 14/7/2011. 4. And whereas, the Board of Management went into the details relating to the entire history of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat, Ex-PH.D. Scholar, FRI (Deemed) University. 5. And whereas, Sh. G.S. Rawat, being the student and while acting as Ex-Officio Vice Chancellor of FRI (Deemed) University, himself approved the Chairman & Members of RAC committee to hold his Pre-thesis seminar and changed the name of Dr. G.S. Rawat, Ex-PH.D. Scholar, FRI (Deemed) University. 5. And whereas, Sh. G.S. Rawat, being the student and while acting as Ex-Officio Vice Chancellor of FRI (Deemed) University, himself approved the Chairman & Members of RAC committee to hold his Pre-thesis seminar and changed the name of Dr. P.L. Soni who was earlier Expert Member of his RAC to Dr. N.S. Bisht. The Board of Management considered it as a serious lapse and found it morally and ethically wrong as Sh. G.S. Rawat was student and acting Ex-Officio Vice Chancellor of FRI (Deemed) University. In any case the file should not have been dealt by himself when his own case was under consideration. 6. The RAC for Pre-thesis seminar was chaired by Shri R.P. Sharma who recommended his own name for examiner-ship which is not the usual practice. Sh. G.S. Rawat being student did not point this out while he dealt his own case and recommended the names of the examiners (one of whom was the Chairman of his own RAC) to the Chancellor. The file of his own case should not have been dealt by Shri G.S. Rawat who was a Ph.D. scholar of F.R.I. (Deemed) University and was dealing his own case as Ex-officio Vice Chancellor. 7. Whereas, the Board of Management held on 14/7/2011 considered it as a serious lapse on part of Shri G.S. Rawat, Ex-PhD scholar and found it morally and ethically wrong to have dealt his own case, being the PhD scholar and Ex-officio Vice-Chancellor of F.R.I. (Deemed) University, and requesting DG, ICFRE for the appointment of examiners for evaluation of his thesis even before its submission and obtaining consent of examiners even before submission of his thesis amounted to moral and academic impropriety. The processing of the file appears to have been done in unusual haste to help a particular scholar who was also functioning as acting Ex-Officio V.C. of FRI (Deemed) University. 8. Whereas, being the Ex-Officio V.C., he approved his own case to put up before RDC as Ph.D. scholar though the approval should have been given by DG, ICFRE and morally it was wrong for Sh. G.S. Rawat to have dealt with his own case in this instance also. 9. Whereas, Sh. 8. Whereas, being the Ex-Officio V.C., he approved his own case to put up before RDC as Ph.D. scholar though the approval should have been given by DG, ICFRE and morally it was wrong for Sh. G.S. Rawat to have dealt with his own case in this instance also. 9. Whereas, Sh. G.S. Rawat chaired the RDC in his own case for the award of PH.D. degree and the Board of Management considered it as serious lapse and resolved that it was morally and ethically wrong to have chaired the RDC by Sh. G.S. Rawat wherein his own case was being considered for the award of Ph.D. degree and it was also like awarding the degree to himself by Sh. G.S. Rawat. 10. Whereas, Board of Management also noted that there had been unusual haste in processing his case by Sh. G.S. Rawat while holding the additional charge of acting Director, F.R.I. and Ex-Officio V.C. 11. Whereas, the members of the Board of Management also raised doubts on the noting on page no. 8 of the note-sheet wherein Shri Rawat had been referred as external student as mentioned on page while he was working in FRI and the certificate given by the Supervisor Late Dr. K.S. Bhandari in the thesis also confirms that Shri Rawat had worked under Dr. Bhandari’s supervision for more than twenty four months and put his attendance for more than two hundred days in conducting the experiments at Forest Research Institute. Since in his registration letter it was not mentioned whether he was registered as external or internal student but at the time of processing of the file to DG for the appointment of two external examiners for evaluation of the thesis his external student status might have been mentioned on the page no. 8 of the note-sheet to grant the favour of exemption from the pursuance of computer application and statistics analysis course which was not required for external students and which was not undertaken by Shri Rawat. 12. Whereas, Board of Management after carrying in depth analysis and examination of the facts resolved that being the then officiating Director, F.R.I. and Ex-Officio V.C. of F.R.I (Deemed) University Sh. G.S. Rawat was guilty of gross moral, ethical and academic impropriety and serious procedural lapses. 13. Whereas Board of Management in its meeting dated 14.07.2011 unanimously resolved to withdraw the degree awarded to him. 14. G.S. Rawat was guilty of gross moral, ethical and academic impropriety and serious procedural lapses. 13. Whereas Board of Management in its meeting dated 14.07.2011 unanimously resolved to withdraw the degree awarded to him. 14. Now, therefore before finally withdrawing the degree, it is considered in fitness of things to give an opportunity to Sh. G.S. Rawat to clarify his position and conduct on above stated points within 30 days of issue of this letter. In case no reply is received, it will be presumed that he has no clarification to offer. This issues with the approval of DG, ICFRE/Chancellor, FRI (Deemed) University. Sd/- (A.K. Tripathi) Registrar FRI (Deemed) University” 5. Petitioner had originally approached the Madras High Court challenging Annexure No. 29 notice; but, the same was withdrawn noticing that the Madras High Court did not have jurisdiction. 6. Annexure No. 29-A, which has been incorporated by way of amendment, purports to be the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management. It is impugned in the writ petition after amendment and since it is crucial for resolving the dispute, the relevant portion relating to the petitioner is extracted hereunder: “Resolution No. 10/2011 The members considered the supplementary agenda presented before it regarding award of Ph.D. Degree to Shri G.S. Rawat-Complaints. The members considered the supplementary agenda at great length. The members were of the view that ultimately Board of Management has to take final decision in the matter. The chairman and all the members stated that there are many serious glaring moral and ethical improprieties and procedural lapses involved in awarding the Ph.D. degree to Shri Rawat. The Board of Management very emphatically pointed out some of these improprieties- (i) Shri G.S. Rawat as Director, FRI, himself approved the Chairman & members of RAC committee to hold his pre-thesis seminar and changed the proposed name of Dr. P.L. Soni who was earlier Expert Member of his RAC to Dr. N.S. Bisht (Annexure-1). The Board of Management considered it as a serious lapse and found it morally and ethically wrong as Shri G.S. Rawat was student and acting Ex-Officio Vice Chancellor of FRI (Deemed) University. In any case the file should not have been dealt by himself when his own case was under consideration. N.S. Bisht (Annexure-1). The Board of Management considered it as a serious lapse and found it morally and ethically wrong as Shri G.S. Rawat was student and acting Ex-Officio Vice Chancellor of FRI (Deemed) University. In any case the file should not have been dealt by himself when his own case was under consideration. The RAC for Pre-thesis seminar was chaired by Shri R.P. Sharma (Annexure-II) who recommended his own name for examiner-ship which is not the usual practice. Shri G.S. Rawat being student recommended the names of examiners (One of whom was chairman of his own RAC) to the Chancellor (Annexure-III). The file of his own case should not have been dealt by Shri G.S. Rawat who was a Ph.D. scholar of F.R.I. (Deemed) University and was dealing his own case as Ex-officio Vice-Chancellor. (ii) In Shri Rawat’s case, although the thesis was not submitted at that time, on 22/3/2002 D.G., ICFRE as Chancellor, appointed Shri R.P. Sharma and Sh. M.C. Pandey (Annexure-III) as examiners to evaluate the thesis of Sh. G.S. Rawat on the basis of pre-thesis submission seminar of Sh. G.S. Rawat which was held on 21/12/2001. Sh. R.P. Sharma was the Chairman of RAC meeting. His Thesis was submitted in FRI University on 7/5/2002 (Annexure-V). The thesis was sent to the examiners on 8/5/2002, the next day on which the thesis was submitted by Shri G.S. Rawat. The examiners submitted thesis reports on 23/5/2002 and 29/5/2002 itself. On receiving the reports from the examiners, the file was again moved to GD, ICFRE for appointment of viva-voce examiner, who on 6/6/2002 appointed Shri M.C. Pandey (Annexure-IV) to hold the viva-voce. The viva-voce was held on 10/6/2002 and on 10/6/2002 itself, Shri G.S. Rawat acting as Director, F.R.I. approved that his own case be put up before the RDG (Annexure-IV). The Board of Management resolved that appointment of examiners and obtaining their consent before submission of the thesis was against the usual practice. He dealt his own case in the matter on the file. Moreover, the approval given by Shri Rawat as Ex-Officio V.C. to put up his own case before the RDC as Ph.D. student amounts to moral and academic impropriety. The approval should have been given by DG, ICFRE. (iii) The notice for the RDC meeting was issued on 12/6/2002. He dealt his own case in the matter on the file. Moreover, the approval given by Shri Rawat as Ex-Officio V.C. to put up his own case before the RDC as Ph.D. student amounts to moral and academic impropriety. The approval should have been given by DG, ICFRE. (iii) The notice for the RDC meeting was issued on 12/6/2002. The case was put up before RDC on 13/6/2002 which was chaired by Shri G.S. Rawat, as acting Director, FRI (Annexure-VI). Shri Rawat handed over charge of Director on 14/6/2002. The Board of Management considered it as serious lapse and resolved that it was morally and ethically wrong to chair the RDC by Shri G.S. Rawat where his own case was being considered for the award of Ph.D. Degree and it is also like the awarding of degree to himself by the chairman of RDC. The Board of Management agreed that there has been unusual haste in processing the case of Shri G.S. Rawat PH.D. student when he himself was holding the additional charge of acting Director, F.R.I. and Ex-officio V.C. (iv) As per the resolution of the Board of Management meeting held on 18/10/2004, the case of Shri G.S. Rawat was again put up before the Research Degree Committee in its meeting on 10/11/2004. The RDC cleared the award of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat in the meeting dated 10/11/2004 (Annexure-VII). And thereafter, the file was submitted to DG, ICFRE and on obtaining his approval, degree was issued to Sh. G.S. Rawat on 27.01.2005. The Board of Management resolved that the matter should have come back to the Board of Management after its clearance from RDC before awarding and issuing the degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. Degree was awarded and issued to him without passing formal grace from Board of Management. (v) As per the resolution of the Board of Management meeting held on 18/1/2004, the case of Shri G.S. Rawat was again put up before the Research Degree Committee in its meeting on 10/11/2004. The RDC cleared the award of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat in the meeting dated 10/11/2004 but cleared it w.e.f. 13/6/2002. It should have been cleared w.e.f. 10/11/2004 i.e. the date of second RDC. The RDC cleared the award of Ph.D. Degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat in the meeting dated 10/11/2004 but cleared it w.e.f. 13/6/2002. It should have been cleared w.e.f. 10/11/2004 i.e. the date of second RDC. Therefore, the date 10/11/2004 (the date of second RDC) should have been mentioned on the degree of Shri G.S. Rawat instead of 13th June, 2002 (the date of First RDC chaired by Shri Rawat himself). The Board of Management also observed this serious lapse while clearing the award of degree and mentioning the date of RDC meeting in the original degree issued to Shri G.S. Rawat on 27/1/05 and on this ground alone the degree awarded to Shri G.S. Rawat becomes non-ist. (vi) In the Board of Management meeting held on 18/11/2005. In principle all the members agreed that there are lapses in award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat and necessary steps may be taken to resolve the matter. However, after clearance from the new RDC the matter should have come back to the BOM instead it was cleared for the award of degree to Sh. G.S. Rawat. As per resolution no. 1 of BOM meeting held on 18/11/2005, the BOM having gone through the entire case resolved to authorize the Director General, ICFRE, the Chancellor of the FRI (Deemed) University) to take final decision on this matter. DG, ICFRE in his letter dated 30th January, 2006 written to the Secretary, MOEF, Government of India had stated that if Ministry feels that getting thesis reevaluated by a fresh panel of examiners should be fully complied with. Then degree has to be withdrawn and only then the thesis can be submitted fore reevaluation. The final decision for formal passing of the grace after second RDC has not been taken by Board of Management till date and this is also enough ground for declaring the degree non-ist. (vii) The members of the Board of Management also raised doubts on the noticing on page no. 8 of the note-sheet (Annexure-III) wherein Shri Rawat had been referred as External student as mentioned on page while he was working in FRI and the certificate given by the Supervisor Late Dr. K.S. Bhandari in the thesis also confirms that Shri Rawat had worked under Dr. 8 of the note-sheet (Annexure-III) wherein Shri Rawat had been referred as External student as mentioned on page while he was working in FRI and the certificate given by the Supervisor Late Dr. K.S. Bhandari in the thesis also confirms that Shri Rawat had worked under Dr. Bhandari’s supervision for more than twenty four months and put his attendance for more than two hundred days in conducting the experiments at Forest Research Institute. Since in his registration letter it was not mentioned whether he was registered as external or internal student but at the time of processing of the file to DG for the appointment of two external examiners for evaluation of the thesis his external student status might have been mentioned on the page no. 8 of the note-sheet to grant the favour of exemption from the pursuance of computer application and statistics analysis course which was not required for external students and which was not undertaken by Shri Rawat. Finally, the Board of Management unanimously resolved that there are moral and ethical lapses in the case regarding award of Ph.D. Degree to Shri G.S. Rawat. The Board of Management being the principal executive body of the FRI (Deemed) University was of the unanimous decision that the Ph.D. Degree awarded to Shri G.S. Rawat should be withdrawn/ revoked as this is the clear-cut case of academic impropriety and misuse of powers. Board of Management being the principal executive body of the FRI (Deemed) university vested with the powers to take all necessary decision for smooth and efficient functioning of the institute, and having fully satisfied itself that Shri G.S. Rawat the then officiating Director, F.R.I. and Ex-Officio V.C. of F.R.I. (Deemed) University is guilty of gross moral, ethical and academic impropriety and serious procedural lapses resolves to withdraw the degree awarded to Shri G.S. Rawat. The meeting then ended with thanks to the chair. Sd/-25/7/2011 (S.S. Negi) Director Member Secretary Sd/28/7/2011 (V.K. Bahuguna) Director General Chairman” 7. Pursuant to the same, it is that Annexure No. 32 was issued. The meeting then ended with thanks to the chair. Sd/-25/7/2011 (S.S. Negi) Director Member Secretary Sd/28/7/2011 (V.K. Bahuguna) Director General Chairman” 7. Pursuant to the same, it is that Annexure No. 32 was issued. Annexure No. 32 reads as follows: “No. 3641/1-1/2007-FRIDU Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University P.O.I.P.E. Kaulagarh Road Dehradun-248 195 Dated 2nd December, 2011 ORDER In pursuance of the resolutions of the Board of Management meeting held on 14-07-2011, the Director General, ICFRE and Chancellor, FRI (Deemed) University has withdrawn the Ph.D. degree on “Exploration of bore hole method of resin tapping in Pinus roxburghii Sarg” awarded on 13th June, 2002 (issued on 27.01.2005, Enroll No. 9607/Ph.D./353) by FRI (Deemed) University to Sh. G.S. Rawat Sd/- (Dr. V.R.R. Singh) Director, FRI & Vice Chancellor FRI (Deemed) University” 8. Pleadings have been exchanged. 9. We heard Mr. M.C. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Davesh Upreti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 4. 10. The contentions of Mr. M.C. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner can be noted as follows: He would submit that a perusal of the meeting of the Board of Management dated 14.07.2011 makes it very clear that the Board of Management has already taken a decision to withdraw the Ph.D. This was done in violation of principles of natural justice. No notice was issued to him. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before the said decision was taken. He would submit that essentially there was an impropriety, which was, if at all, committed by the petitioner in chairing the meeting of the R.D.C. in his capacity as the Director of the Forest Research Institute on 13.06.2002; but, upon it being noticed, a new meeting of R.D.C. took place subsequently. As we have already noticed, the new meeting, which was not chaired by the petitioner, has again recommended the grant of Ph.D. w.e.f. 13.06.2002. Therefore, the impropriety in the petitioner chairing the earlier meeting stood cured. As far as nominating Mr. Sharma as Chairman of the R.D.C. is concerned, it is a case of the petitioner that he was nominated by his predecessor. In regard to removal of Mr. P.L. Soni, which is referred to at the instance of the petitioner, it is submitted that he was not a subject expert. As far as nominating Mr. Sharma as Chairman of the R.D.C. is concerned, it is a case of the petitioner that he was nominated by his predecessor. In regard to removal of Mr. P.L. Soni, which is referred to at the instance of the petitioner, it is submitted that he was not a subject expert. It is submitted that the subject expert was, actually, Mr. N.S. Bisht and, therefore, he was substituted and Mr. P.L. Soni never objected. He would next complain about the procedure adopted in taking the decision dated 14.07.2011 by the Board of Management. It is his case that, under the Memorandum of Objects of the F.R.I., which is a deemed University, there should be 14 members of the Board of Management. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure No. 29-A) would show that only eight persons were present. He would further complain that it was, actually, included as a supplementary agenda, though, having regard to the significance of the matter, it should have been listed as the main agenda in the meeting. Next, he drew our attention to the Ordinance relating to the grant of Ph.D. He would submit that the matter relating to the withdrawal of Ph.D. is the matter, which is actually in the domain of the Academic Council. We noticed also the Ordinance relating to the grant of Ph.D. In regard to the supremacy or relevance of the Academic Council, he sought to draw support from Clause 8.12 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: “8.12. In case both the original examiners approve the thesis or on the event of the divergence of opinion between the two, if the third examiner approves the thesis, the candidate shall be called upon to appear for a test before a Viva-Voce Board comprising the Supervisor and one of the two examiners approved by the Director who approved the thesis. If the Viva-Voce Board is satisfied, the case shall be reported to the RDC and the Academic Council for the award of Ph.D. degree. If the Viva-Voce Board is satisfied, the case shall be reported to the RDC and the Academic Council for the award of Ph.D. degree. Provided that if a Viva-Voce is not in a position to conduct the Viva-Voce examination, the Director may looking to the special circumstances of the case, appoint an alternative Viva-Voce examiner.” We also noticed Clause 9.2 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: “9.2 Notwithstanding anything contained in these ordinances, any question, which is not covered by these ordinances, or any difficulty arising out of these ordinances shall be dealt with by the Academic Council.” 11. Per contra, the stand of the respondents appears to be that there were serious lapses in the matter of grant of Ph.D. Quite apart from the fact that the petitioner had chaired the R.D.C. on 13.06.2002, which shows that the petitioner was acting in an issue, which involves his own interest, it should not have been done. The conduct of the petitioner in removing Mr. P.L. Soni, the subject expert and substituting him with somebody else also cannot be justified. It is submitted that the entire matter was elaborately considered by the Board of Management, as is evident from Annexure No.29-A dated 14.07.2011 and it is further submitted that after the meeting took place on 14.07.2011, the petitioner was served with Annexure No. 29 notice calling upon him to give his explanation, which he did not. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case where the petitioner was not given any opportunity, as perusal of Annexure No. 32 would show that there is no reply given by the petitioner to the notice. 12. It is reiterated by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the Board of Management is a supreme executive body. It is contended that this can be established with reference to the U.G.C. notification dated 21.05.2010, namely, U.G.C. (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations, 2010. Therein, under Clause 4.4.(xi) under the head Powers of the Board of Management, it is provided as follows: 4.4.(xi) : To approve the award of Degrees and diplomas based on the results of examinations and tests and to confer, grant or award degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic titles and distinctions.” 13. Therefore, it is contended that it is indeed the Board of Management, which has a power also to withdraw the degree. Therefore, it is contended that it is indeed the Board of Management, which has a power also to withdraw the degree. In fact, various irregularities, which are pointed out in the meeting dated 14.07.2011 are reiterated before us. He also pointed out that, as per his own case, as projected in the rejoinder affidavit, it would tend to show that the petitioner accepts the authority of the Board of Management in the matter. 14. By the impugned order/proceedings dated 14.07.2011, we noticed that the Board of Management, after adverting to various facts, has unanimously resolved to withdraw the Ph.D. awarded to the petitioner, as this is a clear cut case of academic impropriety and misuse of powers. It is stated further that the Board of Management, being the principal executive body vested with the powers to take all necessary decisions for smooth efficient functioning and having been fully satisfied that the petitioner is guilty of gross moral, ethical and academic impropriety, resolves to withdraw the degree awarded to Mr. G.S. Rawat. It is, thereafter, that Annexure No. 29 is issued by the Registrar referring to various aspects and we may notice paragraph nos. 12 to 14, which we have already referred to above. There can be no doubt that the principles of natural justice are salutary principles required to be observed when a right or legitimate expectation is sought to be taken away or affected by a public body. It is indeed one of the grounds for judicial review. The decision making process must not be legally flawed. One of the incontestable elements of judicial review is to interfere unless it is a case of complete act of futility, in a case, where the decision maker has flouted fundamental principles of natural justice, namely, audi alteram partem. In this case, a perusal of the decision taken on 14.07.2011 (Annexure No. 29-A) makes it clear that the Board has already, after the discussion amongst the eight members available, taken a unanimous decision to resolve and what is more to withdraw the Ph.D. finding him guilty of various lapses. It is, thereafter, that the notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner had not given any reply; but, the decision maker having made up his mind in a matter of this magnitude having such far reaching repercussions on the career of the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained. It is, thereafter, that the notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner had not given any reply; but, the decision maker having made up his mind in a matter of this magnitude having such far reaching repercussions on the career of the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained. Therefore, we would think that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this ground alone and, therefore, we need not go into the other contentions of the merits including the contention that the meeting was called without giving notice to all the members or that it was included in the supplementary agenda instead of main agenda and the other aspects relating to the merit of the matter. 15. Therefore, the writ petition will stand allowed. Annexure No. 29, Annexure No. 29-A and Annexure No. 32 will stand quashed. As we have already noticed, we base our judgment on the ground that there has been occasioned gross violation of the principle of natural justice and we make it clear that we have not gone into any other contentions and we also leave it open to the competent body to take steps, if advised, to withdraw the Ph.D. degree awarded to the petitioner, in which case, we leave open all the contentions available to the petitioner also. We are also making it clear that we have not pronounced on the other contentions which have been raised by the respondents as regards the merits of the matter.