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