Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, G. Balagangadharan Nair, JJ.
T.K. KOSHY - Appellant
Vs.
CHANCELLOR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Decided On : 19-09-1979
Suspension - University Registrar - Act Section List: Section 7, Section 9, Section 32, Statute 17, Statute 19, Statute 23, Statute 27, Statute 28 - The court discussed the statutory provisions under Section 7, Section 9, Section 32, Statute 17, Statute 19, Statute 23, Statute 27, and Statute 28 of the University Act, and their interpretation in relation to the Chancellor's authority to suspend the Registrar pending enquiry. The court held that the Chancellor had the authority to suspend the Registrar based on the statutory provisions and dismissed the writ appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is by the Registrar of the Calicut University against the dismissal of his writ petition to quash the order of suspension pending enquiry passed against him by the Chancellor of the University, the Governor of Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Chancellor had the authority to pass the order of suspension pending enquiry and that the same was not vitiated by want of jurisdiction or other illegalities alleged against it.
Issues: The issues included the authority of the Chancellor to suspend the Registrar, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the alleged non-application of mind and mala fides in passing the suspension order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions under the University Act, which conferred authority on the Chancellor to suspend the Registrar pending enquiry.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed by the court, and the court appreciated the arguments presented by both parties.
JUDGMENT :
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.—The appeal is by the Registrar of the Calicut University against the dismissal of his writ petition to quash Ext. P13 order of suspension pending enquiry, passed against him by the Chancellor of the University, the Governor of Kerala; Ext, P14 communication of the gist of the Governor's order by the Vice-Chancellor; Ext. P15 memo serving the order of suspension and relieving the appellant from his duties as Registrar; and Ext. P16 circular of the Vice-Chancellor announcing that in pursuance of the Chancellor's proceedings, the appellant had been relieved. These were the orders and proceedings sought to be quashed. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Chancellor had authority to pass Ext. P13 order and that the same was not vitiated by want of jurisdiction or the other illegalities alleged against it.
2. The affairs of the Calicut University had been attracting public notice and criticism for some time past. In July, 1978, the State Youth Muslim League had made a representation containing allegations against the functioning of the University and its officials including the appellant. This was referred for investigation to the Director of Vigilance u/s 69(2) of the Act. There was also a report of the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts. Exhibit P13 set out that these, at least prima facie, established serious irregularities and malpractices against the appellant. The Syndicate was directed to examine these irregularities and misconduct and dereliction of duty referred to in the report of the Director of Vigilance and the Audit Report and to take appropriate action against the Registrar. Pending enquiry into these, the Chancellor recorded that it was not in the interests of the University or in public interest to allow the Registrar to continue as Registrar and. therefore, ordered his suspension. The action was statedly taken under Statute 19 of Chapter IV of the First Statutes of the University Act. The action has been challenged as beyond the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, as unjustified by the statutory provision relied on; and as being vitiated by mala fides.
3. The statutory provision to which the impugned action traced is Statute 19(1)(a) of Chapter IV-Part III, of the First Statutes which reads:
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or
xxxxxxxx
Under the above provision the Chancellor will have the requisite authority if he is either the appointing authority, or an authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate. Let: us see, therefore, if he is either of these. Section 3 of the Act enacts that the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice Chancellor and the Members of the Senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council, shall constitute a body by name of the University of Calicut with perpetual succession and common seal. So that, the Chancellor is part of the Corporate body known as the University. Section 7 provides for powers of the Chancellor. We shall extract the Section in full:
7. The Chancellor.--(1) The Governor of Kerala shall, by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University.
(2) The Chancellor shall be the head of the University and shall, when present, preside at meetings of the Senate, and at any convocation of the University.
(3) The Chancellor may, by order in writing, annul any proceeding of any of the authorities of the University which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the Regulations, the rules or the bye-laws:
Provided that, before making any such order, the Chancellor shall call upon such authority to show cause why such an order should not be made and consider the cause, if any, shown by such authority within a reasonable time.
(4) The
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
