Jamia Millia Islamia Professor 10 Year Battle Retirement Benefits

The Delhi High Court has upheld relief granted to a former Jamia Millia Islamia professor who served the university for over three decades and spent nearly eight years challenging his compulsory retirement, holding that even in departmental proceedings, documents must be proved through witnesses before they can be relied upon to impose punishment.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, while affirming a single judge’s decision granting notional reinstatement to former professor M G Hussain up to the date of his superannuation, noted that he joined the Jamia Millia University as a reader in 1980 and he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation by now.

“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.

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.

It was placed on record that Hussain joined the Jamia Millia 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.

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.

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.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More