Judgement

SHAH, J. : The State of Madhya Pradesh held an enquiry against the appellant Dr. Bool Chand-a member of the Indian Administrative Service - on charges of "gross misconduct and indiscipline" in respect of the conduct of the appellant when he was Collector District Rajgarh. The Enquiry Officer held that in recording certain remarks "regarding association of the Commissioner of Bhopal with one B. L. Gupta a pleader of Zirapur" the appellant was actuated by malice" and his conduct offended against official propriety, decorum and discipline", and that the appellant had without permission removed a safe from the Rajgarh Treasury. The President of India served notice upon the appellant requiring him to show cause against the order of compulsory retirement proposed to be passed in regard to him. The President also consulted the Union Public Service Commission. The Union Public Service Commission was of the view that " in the light of the findings and conclusions stated by them and having regard to all the circumstances relevant to the case the penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension should be imposed upon" the appellant, and they advised the President accordingly. By order dated February 28, 1963, the President directed that the appellant be compulsorily retired from the Indian Administrative Service with immediate effect.

2. In March 1965, the appellant was appointed Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science in the Punjab University. On June 18, 1965, the appellant was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Kurukshetra University by order of Mr. Hafiz Mohd. Ibrahim-who was the Chancellor of the University. After Mr. Hafiz Mohd. Ibrahim vacated the office of Chancellor of the University, Sardar Ujjal Singh, Governor of Punjab held the office of Chancellor. On March 31, 1966, the Chancellor Sardar Ujjal Singh ordered that the appellant be suspended from the office of Vice Chancellor, and by another order the Chancellor issued a notice requiring the appellant to show cause why his services as Vice-Chancellor of the Kurukshetra University be not terminated. The appellant submitted his representation, and shortly thereafter filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab for a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the order and the notice dated March 31, 1966. On May 8, 1966 the Chancellor passed an order in exercise of the power under sub-cl. (vi) of Cl. 4 of Sch. I to the Kurukshetra University Act, l956, read with S. 14 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, terminating with immediate effect "the services" of the appellant "from the office of Vice-Chancellor of the Kurukshetra University". The petition was then amended by the appellant, and a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ calling for the record and quashing the order dated May 8, 1966, terminating the services of the appellate was also claimed. The High Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant. Against that order, with certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred.

3. The first argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Chancellor had no power to terminate the tenure of office of a Vice-Chancellor. It is necessary, in considering the validity of that argument, to read certain provisions of the Kurushetra University Act 12 of 1956. By S. 4 the University is invested with the power inter alia, to do all such things as may be necessary, incident or conducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of the University. By S. 7, amongst others, the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar are declared to be officers of the University. By S. 8 the powers, duties of officers, terms of office and filling of casual vacancies are to be prescribed by the statutes. Section 14 (1) provides that the statutes in Sch. I shall be the statutes of the University and that the "Court of the University" shall have the power to make new or additional statutes and to amend or repeal the statutes. By S. 2