IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL, JJ.
Prof. Adya Prasad Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 157 of 2021, C.M. Nos. 15280, 15282 of 2021
Decided On : 13-05-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 311 - Disciplinary Authority - Vice Chancellor of Manipur University - Whether disciplinary authority has applied its mind while passing order - Seeking quash of order passed by respondent no. 1 of dismissal of appellant from post of Vice-Chancellor, University; quashing of advertisement published for fresh appointment of Vice Chancellor of University; direction to restore appellant to post of Vice Chancellor of University.
Finding of the Court:
It is clear from a reading of the dismissal order that respondents had duly applied their mind to the defences raised by the appellant and record and findings of inquiry proceedings - Merely because Manipur University is financed by or there is an element of control with Central Government, it cannot be said that employees of Manipur University hold a ‘civil post’ under Union and are entitled to protection under Article 311 of Constitution - Respondents carried out an elaborate fact-finding inquiry to establish guilt of appellant and gave full opportunity to appellant to participate in same. However appellant instead of participating in inquiry proceedings, preferred to challenge inquiry proceedings, initially before Manipur High Court and subsequently, before this Court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. The present intra Court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act has been filed impugning the judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4031/2020 whereby the Ld. Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein, inter-alia seeking (i) quashing of the order dated 21st February, 2020 passed by the respondent no. 1 of dismissal of the appellant from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur University; (ii) quashing of advertisement dated 16th March, 2020 published for fresh appointment of Vice Chancellor of the Manipur University; (iii) direction to restore the appellant to the post of Vice Chancellor of Manipur University.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:
(ii) On 20th January, 2018, the appellant claimed that he received an extortion letter demanding Rs. 5 crores, upon receipt of which an FIR dated 1st March, 2018 was registered with the Manipur Police.
(iii) Consequent to an intensive agitation against the appellant led by groups like Manipur University Staff Association (MUSA), Manipur University Students’ Union (MUSU) and Manipur University Teachers’ Association (MUTA), a two-member Fact Finding committee was constituted by way of a Notification dated 12th July, 2018 by the respondent no. 2 to enquire into allegations against appellant of gross financial and administrative irregularities in the management of the affairs of the university.
(iv) A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed between the agitating groups and the Joint Secretary, MHRD, Government of India on 16th August, 2018 on seven points, inter-alia including, that the appellant would remain on leave for the period of the inquiry and the Registrar of the University shall be the Nodal Officer of the Inquiry Committee. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2, on 17th August, 2018, constituted an Inquiry Committee comprising of former Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya, as Chairperson and Professor M.K. Choudhary, former Vice Chancellor, Tezpur University, as Member.
(v) ‘Terms of Reference of Inquiry’ contained 18 allegations enumerated below:
“1. That, the present Vice Chancellor of Manipur University with the exception in the annals of Vice Chancellor, has a bizarre habit of remaining away from the university for long periods. Most of his visits outside the state are largely unofficial tours. To the utmost shock he never informs his office the date of his arrival for those regular unofficial tours. This amounts disgrace to the office he holds.
2. That, he intentionally violates the University Act, MU Act 2005 section 22, which makes mandatory for a “Court Meeting” to assess current financial years performance and which further prepares annual objectives for the succeeding year. In the absence of any such meeting the university has failed to assess as well as to set objectives for the succeeding annual period. It is highly important to highlight here that the failure to conduct the “Court 13 Meeting” the Vice Chancellor of Manipur University has forfeited the noble idea of check and balance behind the very conduct of the meeting and gives him large avenue for manipulating the programs and huge sanctioned amounts to meet his selfish and ulterior motives.
3. That, the present Vice Chancellor of Manipur University has utterly failed to perform his duties as no convocation is held since the last Convocation of the University (14th Convocation) which was held on 29th April, 2014. When the matter was put forward by us he refused to entertain the same.
4. That, the mandatory conditions to conduct Executive Council meeting (3 times in a year) and Finance Committee meeting (3 times in a year) according to the University Rules has been deliberately overlooked. This prevents the office of the Vice Chancellor of Manipur University from sc
Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ)
Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal vs. Dr. Sumitra Dash and Others
Dr. S.L. Agarwal vs. G.M. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 177
Pyare Lal Sharma vs. Managing Director and Others
State Bank of India vs. S. Vijaya Kumar
State of Assam vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta
Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.