Delhi HC Upholds One-Year Freeze Of Ayurveda Professor’s Teacher Code, ₹1.5 Lakh Penalty Over Disputed Attendance

The petitioner was appointed as a professor at Sumandeep Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital with effect from 10 February 2026. During a surprise inspection on 10 March 2026, the respondent found her absent and treated her as an “on paper” teacher.

At a hearing, she submitted geo-tagged photographs, attendance records, leave applications and medical documents. By order dated 1 September 2026, the respondent concluded that she had not established regular attendance, withdrew and kept her teacher code in abeyance for one year, and imposed a penalty of ₹1.5 lakh. She challenged that order, alleging that the evidence and her medical condition had not been properly considered.

1. Whether the respondent’s decision that the petitioner had failed to establish that she was a regular teacher warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

2. Whether the petitioner’s disagreement with the respondent’s assessment of the attendance, photographic, CCTV and medical evidence justified a fresh assessment by the Court

Article 226 permits judicial review of administrative decisions, but it does not ordinarily authorise the High Court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority.

A disputed factual conclusion is not, by itself, a ground for interference; intervention requires a demonstrable error such as perversity or a conclusion unsupported by evidence.

The Court noted that the petitioner had an opportunity to present her case and that the respondent considered the material she submitted. The respondent identified discrepancies between 27 biometric attendance entries and 30 physical-register entries, found that the petitioner’s hearing signatures did not match those in the register, and considered the photographs, CCTV footage, leave applications and medical certificates insufficient to establish regular attendance.

The petitioner’s reliance on the same material to support a different inference did not establish perversity. Since resolving her challenge would require reassessing disputed evidence and the respondent had taken a plausible view, the Court declined to undertake a de novo review under Article 226.

It dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending applications, leaving the impugned order in place.