Allahabad High Court
CHANDRA SHEKHAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court set aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 and allowed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Prof. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, challenged a disciplinary resolution dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Board of Governors of IIT Kanpur, which imposed punishment on him. He argued that the charges were identical to those faced by Prof. Sanjay Mittal, whose disciplinary findings were set aside by a later judgment in Special Appeal No. 693 of 2025. The court noted that the Supreme Court had quashed the findings against Prof. Mittal and that the Board of Governors had indicated no intention to pursue the matter against the petitioner. Consequently, the court held that there was no surviving cause of action against the petitioner. By consent of the parties, the impugned order of 08.03.2019 was set aside and the writ petition was allowed, granting the petitioner relief and restoring his service benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary resolution dated 08.03.2019 against the petitioner can be sustained in view of the judgment in Special Appeal No. 693 of 2025 that set aside similar findings against Prof. Sanjay Mittal.
- Whether any cause of action remains against the petitioner after the relief granted to other similarly situated professors.
- Whether the impugned order should be quashed and the writ petition allowed.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- service benefits
- board of governors
- quashing order
- writ petition
- academic institution
- identical charges
- special appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5106 of 2019
Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Govind
Kumar Singh (Sr. Advocate)
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Arvind Kumar Goswami,
Rohan Gupta
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Avaneesh Tripathi, Advocate along with Sri Aishwarya
Pratap Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Digvijay
Vajpayee, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rohan Gupta, on behalf of
respondent no. 2 and 3.
2. At the very outset, Sri Avaneesh Tripathi, learned Advocate, submits
that an identical charge was made against one Professor Sanjay Mittal and
the petitioner, i.e. Professor C.S. Upadhyay, for calling upon a meeting of
the department, which resulted in prejudice to one Dr. Subrahmanyam
Saderla.
3. He submits that though the matter had travelled to this Court on
previous occasions and had been remanded to the Board of Governors;
but finally, the issue has been brought to rest in pursuance of a decision
passed in Special Appeal No. 693 of 2025 (Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union
of India and others) along with Special Appeal No. 879 of 2025 (Indian
Institute of Technology and another vs. Prof. Sanjay Mittal and two
others), whereby the Special Appeal preferred by Prof. Sanjay Mittal was
allowed and that preferred by I.I.T. was dismissed, and the judgment and
order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.
5151 of 2023 was modified. For ready reference, the operative portion of
the judgment dated 05.08.2026 is reproduced below:-
"In view of the conclusion recorded hereinabove, Special Appeal No. 693 of 2025
WRIA No. 5106 of 2019
2
preferred by Prof. Mittal is allowed and Special Appeal No. 879 of 2025 preferred by
IIT is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5151 of 2023 is modified to the extent that the findings
recorded in the disciplinary proceedings against Prof. Mittal are set aside.
Consequently, the resolution dated 23.07.2022 passed by the Board of Governors, IIT
Kanpur, and the consequential office order dated 01.08.2022 issued by the Director,
imposing punishment upon Prof. Mittal, is quashed. Prof. Mittal shall be entitled to all
consequential service benefits, in accordance with law."
4. In view of the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner submits that the
initial resolution dated 08.03.2019 also does not survive because, as far as
Dr. Rajeev Shekhar was concerned, he was granted relief by this Court
and has now retired. Hence, as far as he is concerned, there does not
survive any cause of action.
5. As far as Dr. Ishant Sharma is concerned, he was given an advisory by
the Board of Governors, which, to his extent, also culminated. As far as
the third Professor, Dr. Sanjay Mittal, is concerned, as stated hereinabove,
this Court has also set aside the findings recorded in the disciplinary
proceedings against Professor Dr. Sanjay Mittal.
6. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that since the charges against the
petitioner were identical to those against Dr. Sanjay Mittal, the present
writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated
05.08.2026. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Institute also
submits that the Board of Governors is not inclined to pursue the matter
against the petitioner, since the same has been given quietus by way of the
judgment dated 05.08.2026, and accordingly, the impugned order may be
set aside.
7. In view of the aforesaid, by the consent of the parties, the impugned
order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 is hereby set aside
and the writ petition stands allowed.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 29, 2026
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…