The Executive Council of the University had no jurisdiction to interfere with the action taken by the Governing Body against respondent No. 1 in his capacity as the Principal of the college.

Headnote:
EDUCATION - University - Disciplinary action against Principal - Jurisdiction of Executive Council of University - Principal and Teacher - Distinction - Statutes framed under S. 21 (g) of Gauhati University Act (Assam XVI of 1947), Cl. 3.
Fact of the Case:

The Governing Body of Guru Charan College, Silchar, dismissed respondent No. 1, the Principal, for moral turpitude, dishonesty, gross negligence of duty, inefficiency, and insubordination. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit challenging the legality of the proceedings and sought an injunction restraining the Governing Body from appointing another Principal. He also made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of Gauhati University, which appointed a committee to report on the propriety of the action taken. The committee found that there was no reasonable ground justifying the dismissal and the Executive Council of the University directed the Governing Body to reinstate respondent No. 1. The Governing Body challenged this order in the High Court under Art. 226, but the petition was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Executive Council of the University had no jurisdiction to interfere with the action taken by the Governing Body against respondent No. 1 in his capacity as the Principal of the college. The Court found that the relevant provisions of the Act and of the Statutes made under S. 21 (g) of the Act showed the separate capacities of the Principal and the Teacher and that the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 to interfere with the action taken by the Governing Body arose only in the case of a teacher and would not extend to a case where the same person held these two offices.
Issues: Whether the Executive Council of the University had jurisdiction to interfere with the action taken by the Governing Body against respondent No. 1 in his capacity as the Principal of the college.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Executive Council of the University had no jurisdiction to interfere with the action taken by the Governing Body against respondent No. 1 in his capacity as the Principal of the college. The Court found that the relevant provisions of the Act and of the Statutes made under S. 21 (g) of the Act showed the separate capacities of the Principal and the Teacher and that the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 to interfere with the action taken by the Governing Body arose only in the case of a teacher and would not extend to a case where the same person held these two offices.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, modified the order of the High Court, and held that the order respondent No. 2 in regard to respondent No. 1 qua his office as Principal was without jurisdiction and the order of re-instatement of respondent No. 1 by the University to the post of Principal must be set aside.

Judgment

J. L. KAPUR, J. This is an appeal by special leave brought by J. K. Chaudhuri for and on behalf of the Governing Body of Guru Charan College, Silchar (which will be referred to in this judgment as the College) against a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature in Assam dated 13th June 1956, dismissing the appellant s petition under Art. 226. It raised the question as to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Executive Council of the University of Gauhati in regard to disciplinary action taken by the Governing Body of the College against its Principal, R. K. Datta Gupta, respondent No. 1.

2. In 1937, respondent No. 1 was appointed Professor of Mathematics in the college. He was appointed Vice-Principal in 1947 and Principal in 1950. Due to certain representations made to the Governing Body against respondent No. 1, a committee was appointed by the Governing Body to enquire into the allegations. This committee held several sittings and made a report after considering which the Governing Body held a prima facie case made out against him, placed him under suspension and called upon him to answer the charges within 15 days. This he failed to do but later on submitted an explanation which was duly considered. As fresh material was disclosed after the suspension, respondent No. 1 was called upon to give further explanation. He then requested for the previous charges being decided before enquiry into fresh charges was made. The Governing Body held a meeting on 1st November 1953, and after considering the matter found him guilty of moral turpitude and dishonesty and also gross negligence of duty, inefficiency and insubordination and ordered his dismissal as Principal and Professor of Mathematics of the college.

3. On 30th November 1953, respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 282 of 1953, in the Court of Munsif Sadar, Silchar, challenging the legality of the proceedings of the committee appointed by the Governing Body and of the proceedings and decision taken by it and prayed for an injunction restraining the Governing Body from appointing another Principal. He also applied for a temporary injunction. This suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge U. A. D., at Silchar and was renumbered as Title Suit No. 10 of 1954 which has not yet been decided. On 11th November 1953, respondent No. 1 made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University against his dismissal and prayed that the Governing Body be directed not to fill up the post of Principal pending the disposal of his appeal which was filed on 30th November 1953, and which was a reiteration of the allegations made by him in the plaint in the suit in the Court of Munsif Sadar. The Executive Council of the University i.e., respondent No. 2 thereupon appointed under para 3 (h) of the Statutes framed under S. 21 (g) or the Gauhati University Act (Assam XVI of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act) a committee, respondent No. 3, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Director of Public Instruction and the Legal Remembrance of the State of Assam to report on the propriety of the action taken. After considering the matter and giving full opportunity to both sides respondent No. 3 on 30th March 1955, made report to respondent No. 2 that

"there was no reasonable ground justifying the dismissal of Shri. R. K. Datta Gupta from the post of the Principal, Guru Charan College Silchar."

4. On 20th April 1955, this report was accepted by respondent No. 2 and it passed the following resolution:

"..................Resolved that the findings of the Committee be accepted and in view of the facts that Shri R. K. Datta Gupta was not dismissed on any reasonable grounds, the Governing Body be directed to reinstate him before 31st July 1955".

Against this order the Governing Body of the college filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of Assam but the petition was dismissed on 13th June 1956.

5. Although in the High Court the appellant ch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document