Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.
Qamar Ahsan - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4022 of 2019
Decided On : 02-11-2020
Shashi Anugrah Narain, Advocate, Piyush Lal, Advocate, Binay Kumar, Advocate, Y.V. Giri, Advocate, Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate, Ritesh Kumar, Advocate, Subhash Chandra Mishra, Advocate
Headnote:
Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 11 – Resignation – Direction to petitioner to submit his resignation from post of Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya on or before 13.12.2018, failing which it shall be deemed that petitioner has resigned from said post – Multiple charges levelled against petitioner – There is no provision under Section 11 of Act, 1976 to provide any opportunity of personal hearing – There has been no violation of principles of natural justice so as to render impugned order void – Twelve number of charges have been found to be proved/partially proved by Enquiry Committee and Chancellor has also accepted said findings of Enquiry Committee – Even if one charge is sufficient to sustain punishment in question, order of punishment is not required to be interfered with, this Court finds that even if two new charges levelled against petitioner with regard to which petitioner alleges that no enquiry was held, are not taken into consideration, other charges which have been proved/partially proved are enough to sustain punishment imposed upon petitioner vide impugned order – However, it is a mandatory requirement that before passing of final order of removal, Chancellor is required to hold a consultation with State Government which is required to be an effective and meaningful consultation and not merely a formality and same has not been done by Chancellor – On this ground alone impugned order is required to be set aside – Impugned order passed by Chancellor is on very face of it a non-speaking order which neither assigns any reasons nor deals with any of defence raised by petitioner in his replies – Impugned order stands vitiated – Impugned order passed by Chancellor quashed – However, liberty reserved to Chancellor to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. (Paras 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44)
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Scope of judicial review – Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding out as to whether process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself, as such. (Para 36)
(2013) 8 SCC 20; AIR 1964 SC 477; (2003) 9 SCC 592; (1996) 3 SCC 364; (1984) 1 SCC 43; (1993) 4 SCC 727; (2010) 13 SCC 427 – Relied.
(1996) 3 SCC 750 – Applied.
(2013) 16 SCC 206; (2010) 13 SCC 427; (1978) 1 SCC 405; (2014) 8 SCC 319; (2014) 2 SCC 401; (2015) 4 SCC 544; (1978) 1 SCC 405; (1978) 1 SCC 248 ; (1988) 2 SCC 602; (1986) 3 SCC 229; AIR 1968 SC 292; (2014) 11 SCC 85; (1994) 5 SCC 267; (2011) 12 SCC 220; (1998) 8 SCC 194 – Referred.
JUDGMENT
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, as communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.12.2018, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to submit his resignation from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya on or before 13.12.2018, failing which it shall be deemed that the petitioner has resigned from the said post. The petitioner has also challenged the Notification No. MU/47/ 2017-2092/Ra. Sa. (1) dated 07.08.2018, issued by the Governor's Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, under the orders of the Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, whereby and whereunder a two member enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the enquiry report dated 26.09.2018. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for holding and declaring that the petitioner was never removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2018 and as a consequence thereof, he be deemed to have continued to discharge his duties and exercise his powers of the said post of Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University with effect from 13.12.2018 onwards till date and to grant all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer in the subject of Economics on 11.01.1977 in S.D. Jain College, Ara under the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, whereafter he was promoted on the post of Reader and then to the post of Professor whereupon he superannuated with effect from 31.03.2017. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as Vice-Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, whereafter he was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of M.M.H. Arabic & Persian University, Patna, vide Notification dated 24.01.2008 and then vide Notification dated 07.05.2014, the petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Jharkhand. It is the case of the petitioner that considering the excellent track record of the petitioner, the Chancellor of the University of Bihar, vide Notification dated 20.03.2017 had appointed the petitioner as the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya for a period of three years from the date of assuming the charge of his office. The petitioner is stated to have assumed the charge of the said office on 28.03.2017 and had continued to work on the said post till the passing of the impugned order dated 13.12.2018.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide Notification dated 07.08.2018, issued by the office of the Chancellor, Bihar, a Two Men Committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations received by the said office against the petitioner herein. The Enquiry Committee was constituted to hold enquiry against the petitioner with regard to total number of 18 charges framed against him, as enclosed with the Notification dated 07.08.2018. The Enquiry Committee had held its first meeting at the office of the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya on 21.08.2018. The aforesaid Committee is said to have met on couple of occasions and had also directed the petitioner to put forth his defense along with facts and evidence. In fact on 04.09.2018, one of the persons who had made allegations against the petitioner had also appeared before the Committee, apart from other officials like the dean management, dean of departments of student welfare, commerce and law of the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, who had also appeared suo-moto before the Committee and had handed over a petition in favour of the petitioner. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to examine/cross-examine any of the persons who had raised allegations against him. Ultima
