IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the procedure for suspension of a Vice Chancellor, as outlined in the Uniform Statute No.4 of 2023, must be strictly adhered to, including the requirement for a preliminary inquiry and proper reasoning for suspension.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ANIL S. KILOR, J. - Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The order dtd. 21/02/2024 issued by the respondent No.2-Hon'ble Chancellor suspending the petitioner as Vice Chancellor of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur is under challenge in this writ petition.

The brief facts of the present case are as under:

4. The petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Nagpur University') under Sec. 11 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2016') vide appointment order dtd. 08/08/2020 issued by the respondent No.2.

5. The State of Maharashtra, on receipt of certain complaints against the petitioner's office, initiated an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Committee consisting of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education and the Joint Director, Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

6. Then, the report of the enquiry was served upon the petitioner with covering letter dtd. 17/10/2022 seeking compliance of the alleged irregularities stated in it, within one month.

7. Thereupon, a compliance report was submitted along with covering letter dtd. 27/12/2022, by the petitioner to the Government.

8. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, thereby calling him to tender his explanation why the enquiry should not be initiated against him under the provisions of Sec. 11(14) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, along with covering letter dtd. 10/05/2023.

9. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation in detail on 15/06/2023, pointing out that, the alleged illegal decisions were taken on the basis of the resolution passed in the meetings of the Management Council and Academic Council and there was no decision taken by the petitioner in isolation and hence, no charge against the petitioner survives. The petitioner, therefore, prays for dropping of the enquiry.

10. Thereupon, the petitioner was heard in pursuance to the show cause notice dtd. 10/05/2023 by the respondent No.2 and issued the impugned order dtd. 21/02/2024 suspending the petitioner from the post of Vice Chancellor of the Nagpur University with immediate effect and further intimating the decision to conduct enquiry against the petitioner.

11. In the meantime, on 30/08/2023 Uniform Statute No.4 of 2023 came into force, prescribing the terms and conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor of the Universities in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner while raising challenge to the impugned order dtd. 21/02/2024, alleging a non-compliance of the provisions of Uniform Statute No.4 of 2023.

12. We have heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri D.V.Chauhan, learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra and Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No.2-Chancellor.

13. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Advocate makes following submissions:

i) The impugned order dtd. 21/02/2024 issued by the respondent No.2-Chancellor suffers from non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

ii) The impugned order was passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Uniform Statute No.4 of 2023;

iii) Without conducting preliminary enquiry and without forming an opinion on the basis of the report of such preliminary enquiry as regards conduct of full-fledged enquiry, issuance of order of suspension is illegal.

iv) The preliminary enquiry may be dispensed with only in case of exigent situation. There was no such exigent situation present in the matter at hand and therefore, the impugned order issued, without conducting preliminary enquiry, is contrary to the Uniform Statute.

iv) The State Government has no role in the appointment or re