One-day attendance mismatch cannot alone prove Ayurveda faculty are “on-paper” teachers, Delhi High Court says in setting aside ₹1 crore penalty

The petitioner institution conducted a BAMS course with an intake of 100 students. During a surprise hybrid visitation on 16 January 2026, 15 faculty members were physically present, while AEBAS data recorded attendance for 44; the respondents treated the difference of 29 as “on-paper teachers”.

After issuing a hearing notice, the respondents considered the petitioner’s reply, which referred, among other matters, to faculty deployment at community outreach medical camps and AEBAS attendance records.

By order dated 4 September 2026, the respondents declared 29 faculty members to be “on-paper teachers” and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the respondents could treat the discrepancy between AEBAS attendance and physical presence at the visitation as conclusive proof that 29 faculty members were “on-paper teachers” without following the verification procedure in the SOP dated 10 February 2025.

2. Whether the declaration and consequential penalty of Rs. 1 crore could stand where the petitioner had not been notified of, or given an opportunity to address, the preceding six months’ attendance data in the manner contemplated by the SOP.

The Court applied the respondents’ Standard Operating Procedure dated 10 February 2025, particularly paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, governing the identification and verification of faculty suspected of being physically absent despite being shown as present.

Under the SOP, a discrepancy between attendance data and physical presence at a visitation is not, by itself, conclusive; the prescribed process includes verification of records for the preceding six months and scrutiny of attendance against the applicable 75% threshold.

The Court cited no other statute or precedent as the basis of its decision.

The hearing notice focused on the difference between the AEBAS attendance recorded on 16 January 2026 and the number of faculty members physically present during the visitation.

Neither the notice nor the impugned order showed that the petitioner had been put on notice to explain the preceding six months’ attendance data or that the SOP’s verification and 75% threshold requirements had been applied.

Because the respondents declared the 29 faculty members to be “on-paper teachers” and imposed the penalty without demonstrating compliance with their own prescribed procedure, the finding and penalty could not be sustained.

It did not determine the merits of the underlying allegations and left the respondents at liberty to initiate or undertake proceedings afresh in accordance with the SOP.

The petition was disposed of on those terms.