Back
1978 Supreme(Cal) 564
High Court Of Calcutta
CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, B. C. RAY
L.N.BIRLA - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
F.M.A. No. 517 of 1978
Decided On : 09/11/1978
B.P.GUPTA, D.K.DEY, PADMA KHAITAN, R.N.BAJORIA, S.B.BHUNIYA, S.K.BAGADIYA, SIPRA SARKAR
The provisions of the West Bengal College Teachers' (Security of Service) Act, 1975 relating to imposition of penalties under Section 9 and for preferring appeals therefrom under Section 12 came into force on the date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 19th October, 1975, and not from the date of constitution of the appellate tribunal under Section 14.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL COLLEGE TEACHERS' (SECURITY OF SERVICE) ACT, 1975 - SECTION 12, 13, 14 - CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY ACT, 1966 - SECTION 23(2) - APPEAL - JURISDICTION - UNIVERSITY - DELEGATION OF POWERS - VALIDITY - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - CONSTITUTION - DELAY - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, office bearers/members of the Governing Body of Birla College of Science and Education, had initiated an enquiry against the respondents 5 and 6, teachers of the college, on the basis of a complaint made by the Principal. The Governing Body, after accepting the findings of the Board of Enquiry, dismissed the respondents from service. The respondents preferred appeals to the University of Calcutta under Section 12 of the West Bengal College Teachers' (Security of Service) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Vice-Chancellor of the University, acting under the powers delegated to him by the Syndicate, stayed the operation of the dismissal orders and directed the appellants to produce certain additional materials. The Vice-Chancellor, after hearing the appellants and the Governing Body, ordered that the status quo be maintained till the final disposal of the appeals. The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor. The learned Single Judge quashed the orders of dismissal passed against the respondents and all proceedings including the orders of the Vice-Chancellor passed upon the appeals preferred by the respondents. The appellants preferred an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the said judgment. The University of Calcutta, the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and the Inspector of Colleges of the Calcutta University, who are respondents 1 to 4, filed a Memorandum of Cross-Objection against the said judgment. The respondents 5 and 6 also filed another Memorandum of Cross-Objection.
Finding of the Court:
1. The provisions of the Act relating to imposition of penalties under Section 9 and for preferring appeals therefrom under Section 12 came into force on the date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 19th October, 1975, and not from the date of constitution of the appellate tribunal under Section 14. 2. The University became competent to entertain appeals against orders passed under Section 9(1) of the Act by the Governing Bodies of the Colleges which came within the ambit of the said Act from the date of commencement of the Act. 3. A teacher of such a college acquired a vested right to present an appeal to the University against the orders of the Governing Bodies imposing any of the penalties specified in Section 9(1) of the Act with effect from the date of commencement of the Act. 4. The Syndicate of the Calcutta University had validly empowered the Vice-Chancellor to hear and dispose of the appeals preferred by the respondents 5 and 6 against their removal. 5. The two appeals of the respondents 5 and 6 under Section 12 were maintainable in law and the Vice-Chancellor was entitled to Act as the appellate authority under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Act relating to imposition of penalties under Section 9 and for preferring appeals therefrom under Section 12 came into force on the date of commencement of the Act or from the date of constitution of the appellate tribunal under Section 14? 2. Whether the University became competent to entertain appeals against orders passed under Section 9(1) of the Act by the Governing Bodies of the Colleges which came within the ambit of the said Act from the date of commencement of the Act? 3. Whether a teacher of such a college acquired a vested right to present an appeal to the University against the orders of the Governing Bodies imposing any of the penalties specified in Section 9(1) of the Act with effect from the date of commencement of the Act? 4. Whether the Syndicate of the Calcutta University had validly empowered the Vice-Chancellor to hear and dispose of the appeals preferred by the respondents 5 and 6 against their removal? 5. Whether the two appeals of the respondents 5 and 6 under Section 12 were maintainable in law and the Vice-Chancellor was entitled to Act as the appellate authority under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act came into force on 19th October, 1975, and all the provisions of the Act including Section 12 had come into force. The Governing Body of the college itself purported to follow the provisions of the said Act in the matter of imposing penalties upon the respondents 5 and 6. The Honorary Secretary of the College on behalf of the Governing Body by a letter dated 30th September, 1977 forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor, University of Calcutta two copies of the orders of the Governing Body imposing penalties upon the respondents 5 and 6 in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the West Bengal Act XXXIV of 1975. The Secretary further intimated that the said communication was being made in accordance with Section 10 of the said Act. 2. Section 12 of the Act confers a substantive right upon a teacher who is aggrieved by an order imposing any of the penalties referred in sub-section (1) of Section 9, to prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of such order to the University to which the college is affiliated. An order of penalty under Section 8 by the Governing Body of the college upon any teacher of the college is subject to an appeal under Section 12 of the Act. The said Section 12 does not qualify that such right to prefer appeal against any other imposing penalties shall not be exercised until the Tribunal under section 14 is set up. In other words, the right of appeal under Section 19 has not been made conditional upon constitution of the appellate Tribunal under Section 14 of the said Act. 3. As soon as the Act came into force, the University became competent to exercise appellate powers under Section 12, because the Act did not contemplate any notification or order for vesting of such appellate powers upon the University. 4. The Syndicate of the Calcutta University had validly empowered the Vice-Chancellor to hear and dispose of the appeals preferred by the respondents 5 and 6 against their removal. 5. The two appeals of the respondents 5 and 6 under Section 12 were maintainable in law and the Vice-Chancellor was entitled to Act as the appellate authority under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment appealed against is set aside and the Civil Rule No. 2411 (W) of 1978 is discharged. The cross-objections are also allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE appellants at the material time were the office bearers/members of the Governing Body of the Birla Collage of Science and Education (hereinafter called the College), which was affiliated to the Calcutta University.
( 2 ) ON March, 17, 1977, the Principal of the said College had made a written complaint against the respondents 5 and 6 regarding an alleged incident dated March 15, 1977. According to the appellants the Governing Body of the College by a resolution dated May 24, 1977 had resolved to initiate an enquiry against the respondents 5 and 6 on the basis of the said complaint of the Principal of the College. It is further alleged that the Honorary Secretary of the Governing Body in pursuance of the alleged direction of the Governing Body had issued show-cause notice upon the respondents 5 and 6. A Board of Enquiry was also purported to be appointed to enquire and submit a report in respect of the allegation and the charges framed against the respondents 5 and 6. It is not necessary for our present purpose to refer to the correspondence between the appellants and the respondents in respect of the said purported enquiry. According to the appellants, on September 28, 1977, the Board of Enquiry submitted a report against the respondents 5 and 6. On September 30, 1977, the findings of the Board of Enquiry were placed before a meeting of the Governing Body of the College. The Governing Body accepted the said findings and resolved that the penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon the respondents 5 and 6 on the ground of their being engaged in activities prejudicial to the academic interests of the College. On September 30, 1977, the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College had communicated the said dismissal orders to the respondents 5 and 6. The respondents 5 and 6, against the said dismissal orders, had purported to prefer appeals to the University of Calcutta under S. 12 of the West Bengal College Teachers' (Security of Service) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the Act ).
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, the Syndicate of the Calcutta University had delegated to the Vice Chancellor of the University authority to hear the said appeals preferred by the respondents 5 and 6 against their dismissal from service. On September 30, 1977, on the representation of the General Secretary of the West Bengal College and University Teachers Association, the Vice Chancellor of the Calcutta University had stayed the orders of dismissal of the respondents 5 and 6 till the University had looked into the matter. On October 3, 1977, the inspector of Colleges, University of Calcutta conveyed the said order to the Honorary Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. The present appellants being aggrieved by the said order of stay granted by the Vice Chancellor, Calcutta University moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India obtained Civil Rule No. 6422 (W) of 1977. The respondents contested the said Rule.
( 4 ) ON January 4, 1978 Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. made Civil Rule No. 6422 (W) of 1977 absolute on the ground that the order of stay dated September 30, 1977 was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice in as much as no hearing was given to the College Authorities or the teachers concerned before passing of the said order. But the learned Judge further held that the University had power to grant stay of the order appealed against by the teachers under S. 12 (2) of the above Act. The learned Judges observed that nothing would prevent the University from passing fresh orders with regard to the appeals of the respondents 5 and 6 in compliance with S. 12 (2) of the West Bengal College Teachers' (Security of Service) Act, 1975. The present appellants have preferred an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the said judgment of Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. in Civil Rule No. 6422 (W) of 1977 and the same is still pending.
( 5 ) ON January 5, 1978 th
