Termination Based on "No Evidence" and Perverse Findings Regarding Degree Validity Is Legally Unsustainable

The applicant was appointed as an Auditor under the sports quota in 2014 and promoted to Senior Auditor in 2017

On February 28, 2018, he was served a chargesheet alleging that his Bachelor of Arts (General) degree from the Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILMU), Sikkim, was unrecognized and invalid for procurement of employment

The respondents based the charge on a 2017 letter from the HRD Department of Sikkim stating that B.A. (General) was not an approved course by UGC/DEC at the university

Following a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the applicant from service on February 22, 2019

The applicant’s appeal was subsequently rejected on June 17, 2019

The applicant challenged these orders, asserting the university was recognized by the UGC until its closure in 2015 and that his 2012 degree was valid

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent dismissal were based on substantial evidence regarding the invalidity of the applicant's educational degree.

2. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse or outside the scope of the original charges framed against the applicant.

3. Whether the Appellate Authority failed to exercise its duty by rejecting the appeal without proper consideration of the applicant's contentions.

The court primarily applied the principles of judicial review in disciplinary matters as established in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, which dictate that a court may interfere if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or influenced by extraneous considerations

Section 22 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, which vests the right to confer degrees solely in recognized universities and institutions

The court also noted that the burden of proving a document as "forged" or "illegal" rests on the alleging authority through verification with the statutory apex body (UGC)

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to consult the UGC, the apex statutory body, to confirm the validity of the degree, relying instead on a state HRD letter that lacked conclusive weight regarding UGC recognition

The Tribunal observed that while the charge was focused on the "invalidity" of the degree due to lack of university recognition, the inquiry shifted to whether the applicant was a "regular" student, which was not a framed charge

The record showed the university was a recognized private entity until 2015, and the applicant obtained his degree in 2012; thus, the closure did not retroactively invalidate prior degrees

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a plea of discrimination, as a colleague (Ms. Jyoti Rani) with a degree from the same university remained in service

The Tribunal concluded the findings were "based on no evidence" because the marks-sheet bore the UGC seal and no proof of forgery was established at the time of dismissal

The Original Application was allowed, and the impugned orders of dismissal (22.02.2019) and the appellate rejection (17.06.2019) were quashed and set aside. The Tribunal ordered the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith with all consequential benefits