Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Suspension Not Effective Without Vice-Chancellor’s Approval; Recovery of Overpaid Salary Set Aside: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that a faculty member’s suspension from a university position is not valid without the express approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The Court further clarified the illegality of recovering overpaid salary when such suspension is not formally in effect.

The case involved Dr. Amit Kumar, an Assistant Professor at Bharati College, University of Delhi. Following allegations of sexual harassment, he was placed on forced leave, leading to a compulsory retirement. An audit revealed an overpayment of Rs. 6,42,131 in salary, which the college sought to recover. The primary issues addressed were the legality of this recovery and the validity of Kumar’s suspension and entitlements.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh examined the procedural aspects of Kumar’s suspension. The Court noted that while the Governing Body recommended the suspension, it lacked formal approval from the Vice-Chancellor at the time of the audit and recovery order. This lack of approval rendered the suspension and subsequent recovery of overpaid salary legally untenable.

Regarding salary and increments, the Court established that Kumar had duly received all his increments until his forced leave commenced in February 2018. Under UGC guidelines, entitlements like travel allowance or additional increments are not applicable during leave or suspension.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the order for recovery of the overpaid salary amounting to Rs. 6,42,131 was unjustified, as the suspension was not in effect at the time of payment. However, the Court denied the petitioner’s claim for additional increments.

Date of Decision: February 13, 2023

Dr. Amit Kumar vs Bharati College

Latest Legal News