Director, Valabhbhai Patel Chest Institute v. C. Ramesh & Ors

TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 07, 2026 N.Khanna/"shailndra"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 07.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010419012026 % LPA 694/2026 & CM APPLs. 60034/2026 DIRECTOR, VALABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE .....Appellant Through: Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv. versus C. RAMESH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Adv. for University of Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. Seeking exception to the judgment dated 28.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 10595/2018, the instant intra-Court appeal has been preferred by Vallabhai Patel Chest Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'VPCI'), which is an institution maintained by Delhi University in terms of Statute 30 of the Statutes of the Delhi University read with Ordinance XX of the Ordinance promulgated by the University under Section 31 of the Delhi University Act, 1922. 2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2026, has set aside the order dated 02.05.2017 whereby the services of the respondent No.1 were terminated. Simultaneously, the resolution dated 28.02.2017/07.03.2017 passed by the Executive Council of the University insofar as it declares the Governing Body as the competent appointing and disciplinary authority for the respondent No.1 since 21.01.1955 and so far as it endorses the decision of the Governing Body of the institution dated 08.01.2013, has been held to be inoperative against the respondent No.1. 2.1 The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, has given an opportunity to the appellant to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Rules, 1971') subject to conferment of a requisite power by the Executive Council read along with the directions contained in the judgment dated 29.01.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) 2110/2013 and the judgment dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Division Bench in LPA 106/2015. The appellant has also been directed to take a considered decision as to whether disciplinary proceedings are required to be initiated against the respondent No.1 and communicate the same to him within a period of four weeks. 2.2 The impugned judgment also provides that in case the appellant decides to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the same shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of initiation of such disciplinary proceedings. FACTS 3. Certain relevant facts that are necessary to be noticed for appropriately deciding the issue involved in this appeal are as follows: a) The respondent No.1, on his selection, joined the services under the appellant against the post of Assistant Registrar (Group-A) on 09.06.2001. b) Governing Body of the appellant – institute took a decision on 21.01.2011 to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalty against the respondent No.1, pursuant whereof a charge sheet was issued on 28.03.2011. The respondent, on initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of the chargesheet, objected to the competence of the Governing Body and the Director of the appellant – institute to initiate the disciplinary proceedings; however, on conclusion of the inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent No.1 on 08.01.2013 proposing the penalty of dismissal from service. c) Vide order of punishment dated 18.02.2013, the respondent No.1 was dismissed from service based on the decision of the Governing Body of the appellant – institute, which was taken in its meeting held on 27.09.2012, whereby it was decided that the penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon the respondent No.1. d) The order of dismissal dated 18.02.2013 was challenged by the respondent No.1 by instituting the proceedings of W.P.(C.) 2110/2013, which was allowed by the le