Sanjeev Kumar Sanyal Vs Ys Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Solan and Ors.

¶1

2025:HHC:41625

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

LPA No.493 of 2025

¶4

Decided on: 01.12.2025

¶5

Sanjeev Kumar Sanyal ......Appellant Versus Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry & Others ...Respondent Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the appellant :	Mr. Subhash Advocate with Kumari, Advoca	Moha Ms. te.	n Snehi, Bhavinta
For the respondents :	Mr. Ramesh Advocate, for	Chand the res	Sharma, pondents-
	Y.S. Parmar	Unive	rsity of
	Horticulture &	Forestry.

¶9

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

Consideration is sought of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.2385 of 2025, decided on 17.07.2025 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Sanyal Vs YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and others, whereby, the petitioner was directed to join disciplinary proceedings initiated against him at Main Centre of University at Nauni, in the office of the Inquiry Officer and direction was also given to the Registrar of the University that during visit of

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2025:HHC:41625

¶13

the petitioner, no harm, physical or mental is caused to him by any official of the respondent-University including Inquiry Officer and the petitioner was expected to remain present at headquarters for the purpose of inquiry. Registrar of the University was directed to do the needful in terms of the said order on every day of inquiry, failing which he, besides inviting contempt proceedings would also be responsible for harm, if any caused to the petitioner. Competent authority was held to be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate orders in case the petitioner fails to come present before it. Subsistence allowance for the period of suspension of the petitioner, if not already paid, was also directed to be paid. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶14

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to join disciplinary proceedings initiated against him at Main Centre of University at Nauni at 11:00am on 24.7.2025 in the office of Inquiry Officer and during afore visit of the petitioner to the University, Registrar would ensure that no harm, physical or mental, is caused to the petitioner by any official of the respondent-University including inquiry officer. Since petitioner is expected to remain present at headquarters for the purpose of inquiry, Registrar of the respondent-University would do the needful in terms of instant order on each and every day of inquiry, failing which he besides inviting contempt proceedings would also be responsible for harm, if any, caused to the petitioner. It is also made clear that in case petitioner fails to come present before the competent authority on the date fixed by this Court, respondent-University would be at liberty to proceed with disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate orders.

¶15

2025:HHC:41625

¶16

Petitioner is also expected to behave decently and in the event of misbehavour on his part, inquiry officer may lodge complaint to the higher authorities. Subsistence allowance for the period of suspension of the petitioner, if not already paid, be paid on or before the date fixed by this Court. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶17

In the afore terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.”

¶18

It is to be noticed that the petitioner’s grievance in sum and substance was against the order of fixing his headquarters at Krishi Vigyan Centre, Chamba during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings since he was initially posted at Dhaulakuan, District Sirmaur and he was directed not to leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission of the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner has got relief to that extent and his headquarters has now been fixed at Nauni, Solan since Chamba is remote district and it could have been difficult for him, as such, to attend the inquiry proceedings from there. Keeping in view the hardship faced by the petitioner, learned Single Judge granted limited relief by keeping in mind that he has to comply with the directions so that the departmental proceedings can be completed at the earliest.

¶19

It is also to be noticed that even interim order in CWP No.2385 of 2025 had initially been passed keeping in view the arguments raised by the counsel for the University, who had taken necessary instructions. Interim order dated

¶20

2025:HHC:41625

¶21

21.2.2025 passed in CMP No. 2303 of 2025 in CWP No.2385 of

¶22

2025 reads as under:

¶23

“CWP No.2385 of 2025 & CMP No.2303 of 2025

¶24

Upon listing of the case today, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-University, on telephonic Instructions of Vice Chancellor concerned states that the petitioner may approach the authority whereafter his headquarters, shall be changed/fixed at Nauni, District Solan instead of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chamba.

¶25

Accordingly, let petitioner approach the Authorities latest by 24.02.2025 and necessary orders for fixing Headquarter at Nauni be issued by the Authorities on or before 25.02.2025.”

¶26

Learned Single Judge, after five months, had also noticed that the petitioner was not joining disciplinary proceedings. Today also the counsel for the University submits that the position remains the same.

¶27

It is also to be noticed that the petitioner by filing separate writ petition No.13972 of 2025 has also prayed that the inquiry under two chargesheets, in question, be transferred to the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries, which was dismissed on 9.9.2025.

¶28

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal itself is not maintainable as relief sought by the petitioner has been granted to him with certain terms and conditions. Therefore, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned Single Judge now.

¶29

2025:HHC:41625

¶30

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, as no further

¶31

orders are called for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶32

( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice December 01, 2025 (mamta) ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge

Sanjeev Kumar Sanyal v. Ys Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Solan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Sanjeev Kumar Sanyal v. Ys Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Solan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Arun Kang and Ors.

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Jagdev Singh and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Ramesh Kumar and Another

M/S Health Biotech Ltd. Vs the State of Hp and Another

Ajay Ohri S/o Sh. Shiam Saroop Ohri Vs UOI and Ors.

Virender Singh Vs the UOI and Others