ORDER :

1. The petitioner No.1 is a college which has filed the present petition through its principal assailing the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure P/16) whereby respondent No.1 Executive Council, University stayed the suspension. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure P/19) has been issued by the University, by which it has been observed that due to typographical error suspension has been typed whereas it should be termination from service which will not effective till the approval granted by the Executive council.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that, the petitioner is aided institution running Post Graduate College in the Bilaspur District. The respondent No.2 who was working as head of Account Department in the petitioner’s college was served with a show cause notice on 26- 27/10/2018 which was replied by respondent No.2. It has been further contended that as per minutes of meeting held on 03.12.2018 wherein the representative of respondent No.1 University was also present and a resolution to suspend the respondent No. 2 and to hold impartial enquiry was taken. It has also been contended that on 12.12.2018 (Annexure P/5) the representative of respondent No.1 has pointed out that no complaint with regard to charges has been given to respondent No.2 and approval regarding suspension of respondent No.2 has not been obtained from the member of the committee who belongs to Government colleges, thereafter, respondent No.1 taking cognizance of the said letter has issued notice to the petitioner to submit reply within one week vide its memo dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure P/5). In the meanwhile, an enquiry was conducted by Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, wherein in the enquiry report (Annexure P/2), the charges levelled against the respondent No.2 were found proved. Thereafter, the administrative committee of the College in its meeting dated 14.05.2019 has taken a decision to terminate the service of respondent No. 2 and a notice dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure P/3) was served upon the respondent No.2.

3. It has been further contended that the respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure P/7) has informed the petitioner that the University has not agreed with the decision of the college and respondent No.2 has moved an application for reinstatement. On the basis of application of respondent No.2, a three member committee has been constituted and till the decision is taken status quo with regard to matter of respondent No. 2 be maintained. The petitioner immediately sent reply to the University on 27.04.2019 alleging that it is undue interference in the Management of the college vide Annexure P/8. It has been further contended that the petitioner has raised protest about the action taken by the University through various applications but it has not been given and as per the Minutes of Meeting of Administrative Committee, a decision was taken on 14.05.2019 for terminating the petitioner from service, vide order dated 15.05.2019 the same has been given effect.

4. It has been further contended that despite objection raised by the petitioner the University vide its notification dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure P/14) has constituted a committee to examine the suspension of respondent No. 2 afresh, despite the facts brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 about termination of service on 15.05.2019 of respondent No. 2 by the petitioner as evident from Annexure P/15 dated 21.08.2019.

5. It has further averred that despite termination order passed on 15.05.2019 the respondent No. 1 vide its memo dated 3010.2019 (Annexure P/16) had directed the petitioner not to give effect to the suspension of respondent No.2 till approval is granted by the Executive Council by the University which was amended on 18.11.2019 (Annexure P/19) and in place of suspension it has been corrected as termination on the count that the termination has not been passed by the governing body and the same will not be given effect till it is approved by th