JUDGMENT
1. Durga Narain College, Fatehgarh is a Degree College affiliated with the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. The Committee of Management of the said institution is aggrieved by an order of the Vice Chancellor as communicated vide letter of the Registrar of the University dated 13th December, 2007 whereby the resolution of the Committee of Management of the institution dated 6th November, 2007 (the correct date being 24.11.2007) has been kept in abeyance and for the purposes of examining as to whether any financial irregularity has been committed by the Principal, the respondent No. 5, a 4-Member Committee has been constituted.
2. The order of the Vice Chancellor of the University is being questioned by Shri Ashok Khare, Learned Senior Counsel on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Committee of Management before passing the impugned order and further that no reason has been recorded in support of the order so passed. Lastly, it has been contended that the Vice Chancellor has no power or authority to take away the rights of the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Committee of Management and to hold a detailed enquiry against the Principal of the institution and to constitute a 4-Member Committee of his own as has been done in the impugned order.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is opposed by Shri P.S. Bhagel, Learned Counsel appearing for the Principal on various grounds, amongst others, that from the records as are available before the Court, the only charge levelled against the respondent Principal is that he has not handed over the relevant records pertaining to the games’ fund and account of examination. He submits that both the said accounts are being operated by the Principal of the Degree College alone and, therefore, the insistence of the Management of the institution to produce the records pertaining to the aforesaid accounts is totally uncalled for. He further submits that the presumption drawn under the impugned resolution that since the records have not been produced, there is misappropriation of funds, is totally unfounded.
4. Lastly, it is contended that the Principal of the institution is ready and willing to produce the original records in presence of the Vice Chancellor of the University. They were earlier not handed over to the Manager of the institution under the apprehension that the records might be tampered with and ultimately he might be penalised for relevant records being not made available. He further submits that if a particular date is fixed by the Court, the respondent No. 5- Principal shall hand over the photocopies of the records to the Management in presence of the Vice Chancellor and he may be required to examine the records and pass a fresh order on the resolution dated 6th November, 2007 of the Committee of Management, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. It is no doubt true that the Learned Vice Chancellor under the impugned order has not recorded sufficient reasons qua keeping the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Institution in abeyance. A serious issue arises as to whether the Vice Chancellor could constitute a 4-Member Committee at this stage of the departmental proceedings against Principal for verifying as to whether there has been misappropriation of funds by the Principal inasmuch as till date, no departmental proceedings have been initiated by the Committee of Management of the institution as no charge sheet has yet been served upon him. More so, the Committee of Management itself has constituted a 3-Member Committee under the resolution dated 9th December, 2007 for examining the issues.
7. Shri Neeraj Tiwar, counsel for the University submits that it would be appropriate in the facts of the case that the Vice Chancellor be asked to re-examine the matter afresh and pass a reasoned speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the Principal as well as the Committee of Management.
8. In view of the stand so taken before us by the parties, we are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of substantial justice that the Learned Vice Chancellor of the University be required to reconsider the resolution passed by the Committee of Management dated 6th November, 2007 suspending the Principal of the Institution after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management as well as the Principal of the institution.
9. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition requesting the Learned Vice Chancellor to pass a reasoned/speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him. Needless to say that the order impugned shall abide by the orders to be passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University.