Fired after 30 years of service, Jamia Millia Islamia professor wins 10-year battle for retirement benefits

“In departmental proceedings, the inquiry officer is duty-bound to arrive at a particular finding on consideration of the material brought on record. Merely because certain documents were sourced from the official sources by the appellant University would not absolve the appellant of the burden of proving such documents by producing some official, who could have, in his deposition, proved the documents even if the genuineness was not disputed by the respondent (professor)”, the June 4 order read. 

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the approach adopted by the inquiry officer cannot be approved in the present case.

The bench was hearing the appeal filed by Jamia Millia Islamia challenging the December 2024 order of a single judge, which quashed the compulsory retirement order of Hussain and directed his notional reinstatement up to the date of his retirement with all consequential benefits. 

‘Directing fresh inquiry unfair, harsh’

• The court noted that Hussain filed the petition challenging his compulsory retirement in 2016, which was decided by the single judge on December 17, 2024, and hence the matter remained pending for about eight years. 
• The court held that circumstances existing in the case do not convince it to remand the matter back either to the inquiry officer or to the disciplinary authority or to the appellate authority. 
• The court added that once some flaw is found in the departmental proceedings, the matter needs to be remitted for conducting the inquiry afresh from the stage at which it is found to be vitiated.
• It was further added that, however, in a given situation the course of remand may not be the only course available to the courts. 
• It was pointed out that there may be situations where, because of a long time lag or any other reasons, directing a fresh inquiry or a fresh order by the disciplinary authority may be considered as unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary.
• The court pointed out that compulsory retirement from service is one of the major penalties as per the rules which, if inflicted upon an employee, visits him with serious civil consequences.
• It was held that the court will not approve the approach adopted by the inquiry officer while conducting the inquiry in the present case. 
• The Delhi High Court did not find any good ground to interfere with the said judgment and order passed by the single judge. 
• The Delhi High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal of the Jamia Millia University. 

Joined in 1980, suspended in 2011

It was placed on record that Hussain joined the Jamia Millia Islamia as a reader in 1980 in the department of Social Work and Applied Sciences. He was thereafter promoted as a professor by an order dated September 5, 2011. Later, Hussain was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. His suspension was endorsed by the executive council of the Jamia Millia University in its meeting held on September 28, 2011. 

It was further resolved by the executive council to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against him. Accordingly, the memorandum of charge was issued to Hussian, dated November 15, 2011. 

It was alleged that the professor had committed grave misconduct of financial irregularities, laxity in administration, lack of devotion and commitment, non-cooperation with a vigilance inquiry, and drawing salary simultaneously from Jamia Millia University and a Malaysian university in 1998. 

Subsequently, the inquiry officer in his report concluded that the professor had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and deliberately violated rules, regulations, guidelines and orders of the superior authorities.

 After consideration of this report and representation of Hussia, the executive council finally resolved to inflict punishment of removal from service upon him. Hussain was removed from the service of the Jamia Millia University on September 5, 2011, from the date of suspension. 

The professor challenged the action. Although the university initially ordered his removal from service, it later modified the punishment to compulsory retirement in 2015 after considering his statutory appeal.

Hussian then approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally flawed. A single judge in December 2024 quashed the charge sheet, inquiry proceedings and punishment order, and granted him notional reinstatement up to the date of superannuation with consequential benefits.

Aggrieved by that decision, Jamia Millia Islamia filed the present appeal seeking restoration of the disciplinary action.

Single judge’s erroneous order

Appearing for Jamia Millia, advocate Pritish Sabharwal argued that without there being any material to establish malice for issuing the chargesheet or without there being any assertion on behalf of the professor that the chargesheet was not issued by the competent authority, the single judge has quashed the chargesheet and the proceedings.

Such an approach, according to Sabharwal, was erroneous and, therefore, on this count as well the said judgment was not tenable. 

Proceedings started with ill motive

Representing the professor, advocate Sumita Hazarika argued that the inquiry officer wrongly rejected the testimonies of the defence witnesses by observing that the same do not have any consequence merely observing that defence witnesses had not stated anything relevant to the charge. 

It was further argued that Hussain was, in fact, the founder of the department of Psychology in the Jamia Millia University, who developed the department with his hard work and ran many centres at the department to help students, many of whom come from underprivileged backgrounds. 

It was further submitted that the departmental proceedings were initiated against him with an ill motive, which started with a roving vigilance inquiry at the behest of certain interested persons in the department and, therefore, in these background facts, the charges against Hussain are not sustainable.