JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as under:

(i) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the notification bearing memo no. SC/210/21 dated 30.07.2021 issued by the Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga by which the petitioner has been suspended from her service with immediate effect from the post of Principal, Woman’s College, Samastipur and further during the period of suspension, Head quarter has been fixed at J.M.D.P.L. Mahila College, Madhubani and further one Dr. Sunita Sinha, Professor, English, Woman’s College, Samastipur has been pleased to authorized to work as Prof-in-charge, Woman’s College, Samastipur (Annexure-6)

(ii) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to immediately resume the service of the petitioner after removing suspension along with all the consequential benefits.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly that the order dated 30.07.2021 has been passed contrary to the statutes of the university, which lay down the method and manner in which suspension order has been passed. Learned senior counsel has taken this court to the Article 10 and 15 of the Statute, wherein it is provided the manner and procedure of suspension in two different circumstances. It is submitted that while a university servant can be placed under suspension certain principles are required to be observed, which were not followed as required under Article 10 of the Statute. Learned counsel submits that the suspension as envisaged under Article 15 of the Statute is a penalty which can be imposed only after holding a regular departmental inquiry. It is submitted that in spite of the order having been passed on 31.07.2021, the petitioner has neither been paid subsistence allowance nor departmental inquiry has been initiated. It is stated that charge sheet has not been served on the petitioner. In this circumstances, learned senior counsel submits that the suspension order dated 31.07.2021 deserves to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the university submits that the suspension order was issued after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent university and after inquiry made by the university through a committee and after receiving a reply the suspension order was passed and therefore this suspension is to be treated as penalty as envisaged under Article 15(4) of the Statute and therefore an appeal would lie against the said order.

4. I have considered the submissions.

5. The petitioner was holding the post of Principal of Woman’s college, Samastipur. She had written a letter to the Vice Chancellor with regard to certain over writings made above her signatures in the register at Samastipur college, where she was lastly posted vide order dated 31.07.2021. It appears that she also went to the concerned college on 13.07.2021 where some altercation had taken place and show cause notice was issued to her on 27.07.2021 as to why necessary disciplinary action be not initiated against her on the allegation that she has shown indecent behaviour with the officer-in-charge and other staff of Samastipur college. Reply was submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. Where after on 31.07.2021 the Vice chancellor exercising powers mentioned under Section 10(18) of the Act of 1976, ordered to suspend the petitioner on basis of prima facie evidence available against her for alleged embezzlement of fund, gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and tampering with records. After the passing of the order dated 31.07.2021, admittedly the petitioner has not been paid any subsistence allowance. A regular departmental inquiry has also not been initiated and the charge sheet has not been served. In reply, while it is stated that an inquiry was conducted through a committee, no document showing any inq