Dr Sami Ahmad Khan v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1208/2026, CM APPL. 5926/2026 & CM APPL. 5927/2026 DR SAMI AHMAD KHAN .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Abhik Chimni, Ms. Moksha Sharma, Ms. Pranjal Abrol, Mr. Ayan Dasgupta, Mr.

Gurupal Singh, Advocates.

versus GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Additional Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Ms.

Shweta Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 1.

The Petitioner was serving as Assistant Professor (English) with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University/Respondent. He has since been removed from service under Rule 11 (viii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, by order dated 24th October, 2025.

2.

While the Petitioner does not raise any challenge to the penalty of removal in the present proceedings, his prayer is limited to seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to issue a relieving letter. 3.

On a pointed query from the Court, counsel for the Petitioner as well The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

as counsel for the Respondent submit that there is no statutory definition of a "relieving letter" under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Mr. Abhik Chimni, Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that a relieving letter is necessary as the same would be required by the Petitioner while seeking future employment and, in its absence, his prospects of re-employment may be adversely affected. 4.

Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that issuance of a relieving letter would effectively amount to a clean chit to the Petitioner, despite the order of removal. He submits that the removal order itself clarifies that the penalty shall not operate as a disqualification for future employment and, therefore, the said order sufficiently safeguards the Petitioner's prospects. In such circumstances, a relieving letter cannot be issued. 5.

The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The removal order records as under:

"NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Statute 20, 22 and 31 and Ordinance 32 of the University read with Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Board of Management, hereby imposes the Major Penalty upon Dr. Sami Ahmad Khan, Assistant Professor, USH&SS, GGSIPU as defined under Rule 11 (viii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 i.e. "Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government" for his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 01.09.2023 till date, remaining outside India (Norway) on an unauthorized absence and joining the other institution i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi without proper relieving from the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi. Accordingly, the above said penalty i.e. "Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government" as defined under Rule 11 (viii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, is hereby imposed with immediate effect upon Dr. Sami Ahmad Khan, Assistant Professor, USH&SS, GGS Indraprastha University."

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

6.

The penalty of removal from service was imposed on the ground that the Petitioner had not obtained proper relieving from the University before joining another institution. Nonetheless, the order itself clarifies that the penalty of removal shall not operate as a disqualification for future employment under the Government, as contemplated under Rule 11 (viii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

7.

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the removal order itself sufficiently addresses the Petitioner's concern regarding future employment. In the absence of any statutory provision or rule mandating issuance of a relieving letter, no writ of mandamus can be issued. 8.

Accordingly, the request made in the petition is declined. 9.

Disposed of along with pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 29, 2026/ab The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.