Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ajit Kr. Singh for the respondents no.2 to 4.
The challenge is to the suspension order dated 5.3.2014 purported to have passed in exercise of the powers under Rule 10 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The order has been issued by the Registrar of the respondent-Banaras Hindu University with the approval and orders of the Vice Chancellor.
The petitioner is an Assistant Professor of Cardiology in the Institute of Medical Sciences at the University. According to the case disclosed in the petition itself some disturbance did take place followed by a strike and members of the staff also agitating on several issues. It is this background which has now culminated into the action initiated against the petitioner resulting in the order of suspension on the charge that the petitioner indulged in such activities and also acting against the image of the University ran a parallel OPD and issued fake OPD slips bearing the monogram of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. It has also been alleged that a press conference was also held motivatively with a view to maligning the image of the University and that the petitioner has indulged into misleading the students as well as teachers as per the report.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, submits that the agitation was a collective agitation involving almost a large section of the teachers including the Director of the Institute of Medical Sciences as well as other dignitaries of the said Institute who joined in the said agitation raising their demands. He submits that not only the work of the hospital is suffering but also no fruitful purpose would be gained by keeping the petitioner under suspension. Sri Khare has, however, vehemently submitted that this action of the University is clearly discriminatory and selective in nature by picking up the petitioner and placed him under suspension inspite of the fact that the report of the Proctor clearly demonstrates that a large number of teachers apart from the students were involved in the said agitation. He submits that the petitioner did nothing extraordinary so as to allow the respondents to be selective in nature to pick him up and suspend in the manner which has been done by the respondent-Vice Chancellor.
Sri Ajit Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the University submits that the Vice Chancellor being competent authority has proceeded to pass this order keeping in view the background of the incident on 5.3.2014 and the allegation made against the petitioner for which an inquiry is desirable and therefore during the pendency of the inquiry the suspension order was justified.
Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the power to suspend a teacher vests in the Vice Chancellor under Statute 31(a) of Chapter II of the Banaras Hindu University Statutes which is extracted hereinunder :-
"31 (a) Where there is an allegation of misconduct against a teacher, the Vice-Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, by order in writing, place the teacher under suspension and shall forthwith report to the Executive Council the circumstances in which the order was made:
Provided that the Executive Council may, if it is of the opinion, that the circumstances of the case do not warrant the suspension of the teacher, revoke the order."
In view of the aforesaid express provision, we are satisfied that the power is there with the Vice Chancellor to suspend the petitioner.
However, the said statute further provides that the Vice Chancellor after placing the teacher under suspension shall forthwith report to the Executive Council indicating the circumstances in which the order was made and then the Executive Council has been conferred with the power, if it is of the opinion, that the circumstances of the case do not warrant the suspension of the teacher, revoke the same.
Sri Khare has urged that the impugned order of the suspension has not even been transmitted to the Executive Council in terms of the aforesaid provision as there is no indication of any such requirement in the impugned order.
Sri Singh submits that the matter may be sent to the Executive Council keeping in view the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, particularly the fact that he is occupying the post of Assistant Professor in Cardiology and that the services of such a Professor may be required urgently in the hospital.
The matter is directed to be placed before the Executive Council in the forthcoming first meeting for its consideration or the Vice Chancellor, if it is permissible, also circulate the same and obtain the information of the members by circulation. The Vice Chancellor shall endeavor to complete this exercise as per statute 31(a) within a period of one month from today and communicate the order to the petitioner. It shall be open to the petitioner to represent the matter before the Executive Council in advance through the Vice Chancellor raising the objection relating to the allegations of discriminatory treatment to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.4.2014 Anand Sri./-