The judgment establishes the restricted scope of judicial review in cases of executive determination of urgency or emergency and emphasizes the limited role of the court in scrutinizing materials in the context of challenging an order of suspension.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) IN these proceedings the Writ Petitioner has sought various reliefs. This pertains to his grievance in regard to an Order dated 16. 4. 2001 suspending him from the services of the second Respondent (hereafter called as "the College" ).

( 2 ) THE writ petition had been heard and disposed off by a judgment dated 17/5/2004 in which it was held that the Governing Body of the College was not empowered to suspend or terminate the services of the Petitioner, its Principal, without prior approval of the Executive Council. In the course of hearing the petitioner had confined his reliefs to claim a challenge to the order of suspension on four specific grounds. The judgment set aside the suspension for the reason that it had been issued by the Governing Body and therefore not authorized by law. It was carried in appeal to the Division Bench which by its judgment dated 7/12/2005 in LPA No. 566/2004, set aside the judgment dated 17/4/2004 It was held that the Governing Body had power to suspend the petitioner. The Division Bench required a fresh hearing and disposal on the other issues pertaining to the Petitioner s challenge to his suspension. Facts of the Case :

( 3 ) THE Petitioner "was appointed as Principal of the College. He claims that, in 1999, immediately on assuming charge, he found a low level of academic discipline prevailing in the institution. Therefore, he took steps to restore the same, which was not to the liking of many staff members who got an enquiry instituted against him, which was initially under Justice M. L. Jain (Retd.) and later under Justice Satpal ( retd. ). The main charge against the petitioner was of improper admissions and permitting change of course to 18 students in violation of the rules. There were also charges of financial irregularities.

( 4 ) THE Justice Satpal Committee submitted a report dated 19/12/2000. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 16/4/2001, after the Governing Body of the college in its meeting held on 9/2/2001 had, on prima facie basis, found him guilty of alleged act of misconduct. The petitioner was asked by letter dated 3/4/2001 to offer his explanation regarding such alleged acts of misconduct. It is alleged in the writ petition that the suspension order was issued without following the proper procedure mentioned in the statutes and ordinances of the Delhi University and with ulterior motives. The petitioner further alleges that the Governing Body had not been legally constituted, since the Executive Council of the University had not appointed 8 members, as per provisions of ordinance XX-B of the University Ordinances. It is alleged that recourse to statute 11-G by the Vice- Chancellor was improper and illegal.

( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the College it is stated that after due deliberation of the findings of the Justice Satpal Committee Report, and materials on record before that Committee, the Governing Body of the College decided to initiate disciplinary action against the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Justice Satpal Committee had found the petitioner guilty of permitting change in the courses of students in contravention of the rules, and a serious misconduct which pertains to the core activity of teaching institutions like the college. The College also alleges that the petitioner was guilty of other financial irregularities. A copy of the Report has been produced with the Writ petition.

( 6 ) THE counter affidavit also alleges that at the commencement of the term in July 2000, the newly constituted Governing Body was faced with a number of problems. Both the morning and evening colleges were virtually non-functional, indiscipline was rampant, teaching was indifferent and the students of the college were suffering. A large number of teachers were appointed on adhoc basis for many years and regular appointment had not been made. Even Karamcharis of the college were agitating. Hence the new Governing Body systematically, tried to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document