A Mere Use of Salutation ‘Dr.’ Without Material Advantage Cannot Justify Termination – Allahabad High Court Quashes Dismissal of University Staff Officer

“The petitioner never submitted a Ph.D. degree; at most, she stated she was pursuing one – this is not fraud”: Allahabad High Court delivered a strongly worded judgment setting aside the fourth termination order passed by Gautam Buddha University against a Private Secretary turned Staff Officer, holding that the charges of fraud and misconduct based on the usage of the salutation ‘Dr.’ were “legally untenable, factually unproven and procedurally vitiated.”

The Court declared that “a mere assertion of pursuing higher studies does not amount to a false claim of possessing the said qualification. Unless there is a clear, deliberate, and conscious misrepresentation with intent to secure an undue advantage, the same cannot constitute misconduct.”

“To dunk an officer into the puddle of ‘doubtful integrity’, the doubt must be more than a mere hunch” – Court Relies on Apex Court Precedent to Reject University’s Case

The judgment is significant not merely for reinstating the petitioner but also for reaffirming the principle that disciplinary actions must stand on solid evidence, not suspicion, bias, or vendetta, especially when they relate to allegations as serious as fraud and misrepresentation of qualifications.

The Case that Refused to Die: Fourth Termination Quashed in Legal Battle Waged Since 2020

The petitioner, Meena Singh, was initially appointed as Private Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of Gautam Buddha University in 2010. Having fulfilled the eligibility criteria, she was regularised and later promoted to the post of Staff Officer in 2018.

The trouble began in August 2020, right after she lodged a sexual harassment complaint against the officiating Registrar S.N. Tiwari. Within days, she was suspended, and subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings, an FIR, and four separate termination orders—each of which was challenged in the High Court and successively quashed.

The University alleged that the petitioner used a fake Ph.D. degree and misrepresented herself by using the title “Dr.” before her name in communications and on her application for the post of Assistant Professor.

The High Court, however, found no material to show that any such degree was submitted by the petitioner, or that it had any bearing on her appointment or promotion.

“Fraud Vitiates Everything” Cannot Be Invoked Blindly in the Absence of Fraud: Court Cautions Against Misuse of Legal Maxims

The Court squarely rejected the University’s reliance on the legal maxim fraus omnia vitiat, observing that fraud, if alleged, must be intentional, demonstrable, and material.

It stated: “It is not enough to merely assert that a fake degree was submitted. There must be clear evidence of submission, intent, and benefit derived therefrom. In this case, none of these exist.”

The Court further observed that the petitioner consistently denied ever submitting such a degree and that the University itself had no proof of her deriving any benefit from it.

“Enquiry Reports Themselves Admit: Ph.D. Was Never a Requirement – Nor Did the Petitioner Derive Any Advantage from It”

In a telling passage, the Court noted that even the University’s own enquiry report concluded that: “It is very difficult to establish that her damnable attempt to show herself as Ph.D. degree holder had a significant role in her promotion.”

Another enquiry report admitted: “In the absence of any material which indicates that the appendage of salutation ‘Dr.’ had any bearing on her regularisation or promotion… it is difficult to assume that any benefit in material terms flowed to her directly.”

The Court concluded that the disciplinary action rested entirely on presumptions, conjectures, and animosity, particularly emanating from the respondent Registrar, who had earlier been accused of misconduct by the petitioner.

“Disciplinary Proceedings Were a Manifestation of Personal Vendetta, Not Lawful Action” – Court Slams Vindictive Use of Administrative Power

The Court emphasized that the entire sequence of events—from complaint to suspension to termination—unfolded immediately after the petitioner filed a sexual harassment complaint against the officiating Registrar.

It stated: “All proceedings against her were initiated only after she lodged a complaint against the Registrar. This unmistakably reflects that the Registrar continued in service, while the petitioner was removed—a classic case of retaliatory administrative action.”

The Court was particularly disturbed by the fact that the complaint which allegedly triggered all action—a legal notice from one Vishnu Pratap Singh—was disowned under oath by the named complainant himself. Despite this, the University proceeded with termination, bolstering the Court’s conclusion of mala fide intent.

“No Employee Becomes Dishonest Overnight” – Court Cautions Against Labeling Officers with 'Doubtful Integrity' Without Evidence

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, the High Court reiterated:

“To dunk an officer into the puddle of ‘doubtful integrity’, it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch… That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material.”

The Court found that the petitioner had an impeccable service record, with seven years marked as ‘outstanding’. The sudden shift in the University’s view of her character, immediately after she complained about sexual harassment, was not coincidental but orchestrated.

Fourth Termination Struck Down, University’s Conduct Condemned

In conclusion, the Court held that: “This is a clear case of unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by bias, founded upon a complaint which was disowned by the very person who was said to have made it.”

The Court reaffirmed that using the salutation ‘Dr.’ without submitting a Ph.D. certificate, or gaining any advantage from it, cannot be treated as grave misconduct, especially in absence of any requirement or reliance on that qualification during appointment or promotion.

It also stressed the importance of fair process, reasonable evidence, and proportionality in punishment in disciplinary matters.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2024