The main legal point established in the judgment is that the governing body of the college lacked the authority to suspend or terminate the principal without prior approval of the Executive Council, as per the statutory provisions of the Delhi University Act 1922, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH various reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition, during arguments challenge was restricted to the suspension order dated 16. 4. 2001 placing the petitioner under suspension and as a consequence thereof it was prayed that petitioner be directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. It was also contended that the governing body of the college has no power to dismiss the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE prayer which was ultimately pressed, as noted above, pertaining to the suspension of the petitioner was argued from various facets. The same being:-

A) the Governing Body which took the decision, being not constituted in accordance with the relevant ordinance of the University, its decision was non-est and void in the eyes of law. b) the meeting at which the decision was taken was not validly convened. c) neither the Governing Body nor the Vice-Chancellor had power to suspend the petitioner, only the Executive Council of the University of Delhi had the power. d) it was only the Executive Council of the University which could have initiated action for suspension of the petitioner. e) in any case, it was only the Executive Council which could approve suspension of the petitioner and there being no approval from the Executive Council, suspension was illegal. f) suspension was malafide as respondent No. 3 bore ill-will and malice qua the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE factual backdrop of the case is that petitioner was appointed, on permanent basis, as Principal of Desh Bandhu College (Evening) with effect from 5. 6. 1998. While he was functioning as Principal of College, a fact finding committee was constituted to look into the allegations made against the petitioner by a section of the teachers.

( 4 ) THERE is a slight dispute on facts which is not relevant, but is noted by me for purposes of record. Petitioner alleges that a committee under the Chairmanship of Professor S. S. Chhiber investigated the charges and exonerated the petitioner. Thereafter on the same allegations another committee under the Chairmanship of Professor A. K. Sinha re-investigated the matter and absolved the petitioner. Yet another committee presided over by Mr. Justice M. L. Jain (Retd. Judge of Delhi High Coiurt) was appointed. This committee was succeeded by Mr. Justice Satpal (Retd. Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ). According to the respondent college, the erstwhile enquiry committees did not take final view of the matter entrusted to them, in that, no report was submitted. Thus, according to the respondent, matter never attained finality and it was the one man commission presided over by Mr. Justice Satpal which was investigating the matter.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the investigation by the fact finding committee by Mr. Justice Satpal, petitioner was directed to proceed on "administrative leave". Petitioner challenged the same alleging that there was no power vested in the governing body to direct the petitioner to go on administrative leave. This found favour with a learned Single Judge of this court. WP (C) 1529/2000 filed by the petitioner was allowed.

( 6 ) ON 27. 6. 2000, respondent No. 3, Mr. P. K. Kaul (IAS Retd.) was appointed as Chairman of the governing body. Petitioner alleges malice against respondent No. 3.

( 7 ) FACTS on which malice is pleaded are that said respondent challenged the decision of this court in WP (C) 1529/2000 by filing an appeal, which appeal, as per the petitioner was filed after petitioner had initiated contempt petition being CCP No. 432/2000 in as much as the judgment and order dated 19. 8. 2000 passed in WP (C) 1529/2000 was not being complied with. Since respondent No. 3 had to comply with the said judgment and order dated 19. 8. 2000, he was impleaded as a contemner. Petitioner alleges that due to this, respondent No. 3 turned hostile towards the petitioner. Petitioner alleges that the decision to file appeal was not the collective decision of the governing body but wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document