Hon. K. N. Pandey, J.
1. We have heard Shri O.P. Singh assisted by Shri S.K. Rao for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Ojha appears for the management-respondents.
2. The petitioner was selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and was appointed as Principal of Buddha Post Graduate College, Kushi Nagar in June 1989. He joined as Principal of the college on 5.12.1989. It is stated by him in the writ petition that he started several departments in the college and constructed buildings. The college progressed day by day and became one of the famous colleges affiliated under Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. The petitioner's work and conduct was so good that he was considered for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of some other university.
3. It is stated in the writ petition that the Committee of Management of the college is headed by an industrialist, Sardar Dilip Singh Majithiya. Shri Chandan Singh Dhillon was the Secretary of the Committee of Management of the college and Shri Rameshwar Prasad Pandey was the Joint Secretary. They wanted to use the property of the college for their personal advantage. A number of letters are annexed to the writ petition to show that the petitioner was directed by Shri Majithiya and Shri Dhillon to bear the expenditure of their travel. Many a time money was also demanded. The petitioner refused to oblige on which the management was not pleased and started interfering in the affairs of the college.
4. The petitioner was suspended on 18.2.1999 and a first information report was lodged by College Management against him and four others in Case Crime No.345 of 1999 under Section 408, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1940 of 2000 by order dated 8.3.2000 transferred the investigation from civil police to CBCID. The investigation is still pending.
5. A five member enquiry committee was appointed by the college on 24.2.1999 to enquire into the matter and submit a chargesheet for approval before the Committee of Management. Since the petitioner had made many complaints against the Secretary and the Joint Secretary, who was made the members of the enquiry committee, a representation was made by him to change the members of the enquiry committee on 1.3.1999 and 12.3.1999. These applications were ignored and chargesheet dated 16.3.1999 was prepared and was sent by registered post. The chargesheet was received by him on 21.5.1999.
6. In the chargesheet dated 16.3.1999 running into 25 pages the petitioner was charged with administrative and financial mismanagement, misappropriation of college funds and embezzlement. He was charged with allowing a daily wage employee, who is not regular employee of the college to maintain the accounts; cash book and other accounts of the maintenance grants for which no permission was taken from the President/ Secretary of the Committee of Management. The amount spent towards maintenance of which the vouchers were annexed with the chargesheet were paid for which no work was carried out, nor there is any proof of its expenditure. All the vouchers are on plain paper and paid in cash and in this manner the petitioner has embezzled Rs.5,15,414/-. The amounts for binding and purchase of books was spent without any demand for binding and receipt of bills. A large number of daily wage employees were engaged without taking sanction from the President of the Society. The District Magistrate was given false information about the meeting of the Committee of Management vide his letter dated 8.3.1999. The petitioner was also charged with failing to attend the meeting on the murder of a teacher of the college late Shri J.N. Singh causing disturbance and destruction of the property of the college by the agitated students. By Charge No.3A the petitioner was charged with appointing his own wife Smt. Gyanti Singh as Lecturer in History. He had concealed the fact that she was his wife. He also appointed one Shri Ghan Shyam Rao, the Lecturer in Ancient History by manipulating his marks, whereas he was not eligible for appointment. The nomination fees of Rs.1,43,783/- and examination fees of Rs.3,34,270/- was misappropriated. The petitioner had charged applications fees of Rs.20/- and admission fees of Rs.75/- from the students and did not deposit the entire amount of Rs.4,39,710/- in the college accounts. An amount of Rs.4,50,741.50 was used for personal expenses. In the same manner the caution money fund, sports fund, reading room fund, B.Ed. cultural fund, examination fund, social welfare fund, development fund and the grant received from the University were misappropriated, for which a first information report was lodged against him.
7. It is stated in the writ petition that in the absence of the petitioner on 28.3.1999 the members of the committee took away more than 300 files, cash books, vouchers, registers and papers from the residence of the petitioner after breaking the lock. Out of these only 149 papers and registers were mentioned in the inventory signed by 13 persons. The chargesheet was prepared on the basis of these documents but that enquiry officer did not supply these documents along with the chargesheet or thereafter. The petitioner requested for these documents by letter dated 22.5.1999 to the President and the Committee of Management but the documents were not supplied to him. Once again he wrote a letter on 24.5.1999. Since he did not get the documents, general reply was given to the chargesheet on 16.3.1999. The petitioner, thereafter, kept on sending letters on 5.7.1999, 19.7.1999, 28.7.1999 and 4.8.1999 to give documents relied upon in the chargesheet. The documents, however, were not supplied to him.
8. On 9.8.1999 the President of the Committee of Management passed a resolution for dismissing the petitioner from service and send a copy to the Vice Chancellor of the University for his approval. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.37339 of 1999. On 1.9.1999 the writ petition was disposed of with directions that the Vice Chancellor will pass an order withi9n a period of one month and that unless and until the Vice Chancellor approve the resolution, the same shall not be given effect to. The order was in consonance with the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (the Act).
9. The Vice Chancellor by his letter dated 4.9.1999 informed the petitioner fixing 15.9.1999 for hearing. The petitioner wrote letter to the Vice Chancellor on 9.9.1999 to provide the documents, which were mentioned in the chargesheet and that the Committee of Management should be asked after supply of documents to give him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also made a personal request at the time of oral hearing to the Vice Chancellor on 15.9.1999 to be given documents and proper hearing. The petitioner's request was not accepted. The documents and the witnesses were not summoned nor any direction was given to the Committee of Management to that effect and on 28.9.1999 the Vice Chancellor of the University approved the resolution of the Committee of Management dismissing the petitioner from the post of Principal under Section 35 (2) of the Act.
10. The Vice Chancellor in his order approving the resolution of the Committee of Management to dismiss the petitioner has observed that the enquiry committee after considering the records, and the accounts examined by the Chartered Accountant found the charge of embezzlement of Rs.95,90,769/- to be established against him. He found that the chargesheet of 25 pages with 171 documents in proof was sent to the petitioner by registered post at his residential address on 16.3.1999. He was required to submit his explanation within three weeks. A news was also published in ''Dainik Jagran' on 14th May, 1999, ''Rashtriya Sahara' Editions Lucknow and Delhi on 12.5.1999 asking the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner did not submit any explanation on which the enquiry committee considered the 16 page enquiry report on the basis of document. In between the petitioner sent a letter on 24.5.1999, which was received by the Secretary of the society asking for time to submit his explanation by 30.6.1999. In order to give sufficient for explanation the Committee of Management in its meeting dated 24.6.1999 decided to sent a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner to submit his explanation and to give him an opportunity to examine the documents and evidence all over again. The notice was also published in the newspaper ''Dainik Jagran' on 24.6.1999 allowing the Principal to appear either on 12th, 13th, 14th July, 1999 according to his convenience and to appear in the office of the Secretary, who was the coordinator of the enquiry committee. The Principal submitted his reply on 29.6.1999, which was received by the Secretary on 10.9.1999 and in which the petitioner denied the charges and requested for revoking the suspension order.
11. The Committee of Management in its meeting dated 9th August 1999 decided to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and informed him by registered post on 26.7.1999 but that the petitioner did not appear on which by a unanimous decision in the meeting of the Committee of Management on the same day on 9th August, 1999, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner for having remained absent for a long period of time, misappropriating the amount from maintenance and development grants without the approval of the President and the Secretary ignoring the permanent employees of the college to allow the daily wagers to prepare the accounts. The Committee of Management also found the petitioner guilty of appointing the ineligible persons as Lecturers in the college and for mismanagement. He was also found guilty of making payments in violation of the orders of the High Court in misappropriating the registration fees of Rs.1,45,782/- and examination fees of Rs.8,44,088.75 of the students. He was also found guilty of withdrawing Rs.49,97,648.27 by vouchers, which has been verified and for not depositing and misappropriating the entire amount of Rs.36,05,250.00 received from the University Grants Commission. The Vice Chancellor found that the principles of natural justice have been followed in establishing the charges and thus he approved the resolution to dismiss the petitioner from service.
12. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chancellor on 28.9.1999 and sent a letter to the Chancellor again demanding the documents and hearing to explain the allegations. The appeal was rejected on 20.6.2000. The order was served on the petitioner on 13.7.2000 giving rise to this writ petition.
13. The Chancellor in his order dated 20th June, 2000 considered the grounds urged by the petitioner in appeal namely that the Committee of Management and the Vice Chancellor did not give him sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The documents and the evidence in proof of the charges were not given to him and that by unreasonable haste the resolution of the Committee of Management to dismiss the petitioner was approved. The Chancellor has considered the stand taken by the Committee of Management that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry committee gave a chargesheet on the basis of cogent evidence establishing embezzlement. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the Committee of Management on 12.7.1999 and 9.8.1999 and thereafter by the Committee of Management also. The Chancellor also noted the contention of the Committee of Management of the college that the petitioner has also been made an accused in Case Crime No.1107 of 1998 reporting the murder of late Shri J.N. Singh, Associate Professor in the Botany Department of the college. The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner to quash the first information report. The Chancellor has also noted the statement of the Committee of Management. The petitioner is an accused in Case Crime No.86 of 1999 for embezzlement as Accused No.3.
14. After narrating the charges against the petitioner the Chancellor quoted sub-section (2) of Section 35 and Statutes 17.06 relating to departmental enquiry against the teachers including the Principal of the Statutes of the Gorakhpur University and has recorded the finding that the petitioner was given chargesheet and that his explanation to the charges were considered after giving him sufficient opportunity of hearing before deciding to dismiss his services. The fact available on record establish that the petitioner is guilty of serious charges, which were proved against him on the basis of the evidence and that there was no illegality of the order of the Vice Chancellor.
15. Shri O.P. Singh assisted by Shri S.K. Rao submits that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The entire enquiry was farce. The President of the college mostly lives outside the country and use to demand money for himself and the Secretary of the College. The petitioner even after doing his best and improving the college, could not make illegal demand of the management and was thus framed in respect of charges for which he had sufficient explanation. The documents taken away from his residence were sought to be basis of proving the charges. These documents were never given tot he petitioner. The petitioner requested to give the document on the basis of which the allegations were made against him of embezzlement made to the enquiry committee, the Committee of Management and the Vice Chancellor were not considered. The petitioner could not give a detailed reply tot he charges on account of non-availability of the documents. It is submitted that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principle of natural justice. The charges of embezzlement could not be proved in the documents which were supplied to the petitioner.
16. Shri O.P. Singh has tried to establish the fact of non-furnishing of the documents, in submitting that the chargesheet could not have enclosed 171 documents, which has been sent to him by post without affixing sufficient stamp. The documents were not enclosed with the chargesheet.