Court No. - 4 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 2 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dr. Gajendra Singh Bhadoria S/O Late Ganga Singh Respondent :- Lucknow University, Lucknow Thru Registrar & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Anurag Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- U.N. Mishra Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard Shri Raghvendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Anurag Kumar Singh for the petitioner. Shri Upendra Nath Mishra
appears for all the respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved by a decision of the Executive
Council, Lucknow University, Lucknow dated 4.11.2009
communicated to him by the Registrar of the University on
9.11.2009, deciding to end the suspension of the petitioner with
immediate effect and to reinstate him in service with the condition
that he will not be entitled to any amount other than the suspension
allowance during the period when he was under suspension.
The petitioner has an alternative remedy of making representation
to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973.
Shri Raghvendra Singh submits that the initiation of the
proceedings by the Vice Chancellor was void abinitio. He had no
powers to initiate the proceedings and to suspend the petitioner.
The ratification of the decision of the Vice Chancellor dated
7.12.2008 in the meeting of the Executive Council dated 14.2.2008
for conducting enquiry against the petitioner was wholly illegal
and could not have cured the defect. He has relied upon judgments
in Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya
Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur and others, (1987) 4 SCC 525; the
judgment in Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao
Chavan AIR 1989 SC 1582 and Committee of Management vs.
Vice Chancellor 2009 AIR SCW 398 in submitting that the Vice
Chancellor, did not have jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner and
to initiate the departmental enquiry.
The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 353 (S/B) of
2008 in which he had taken the same grounds. The Court,
however, found that since the enquiry has been concluded and that
the disciplinary authority has to take a final decision, the matter
may be considered by the disciplinary authority. The Court made it
clear that it has not entered into merits of the case and left it open
before the appropriate forum.
In Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta (supra) the Apex Court considered
an order, by which the Vice Chancellor had reviewed the decision
and that in the Marathwada University (supra) the question
involved was whether the Vice Chancellor could have approved
the order of removal. The Apex Court held that the Vice
Chancellor did not have such powers and that the rectification of
the decision, which was void abinitio, was not valid. In
Committee of Management (supra) the Supreme Court held that
Chancellor was not supposed to decide intricate question of law
involving interpretation of a statute.
In the present case, the Vice Chancellor has exercised the powers
of initiating disciplinary enquiry and suspending the petitioner on
7.12.2008 as emergency measure for the reasons that the petitioner
was involved in a criminal case in which a charge sheet was
submitted; he was not doing teaching work and had disobeyed the
orders of the Head of the Department.
Shri Raghvendra Singh submits that if the Vice Chancellor was
required to take any action in his emergency powers in deviation
of the Rules and Regulations of the University, the permission of
the Chancellor is required. The submission, that the action was in
deviation of the Rules of the University, is doubtful. In any case,
we find that the petitioner can take this ground also before the
Chancellor.
The Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy
with observations that since the petitioner has to retire in
November of this year, the Chancellor may consider to decide the
matter very expeditiously, and if it is possible within a period of
four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced
before him.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010
RKP