The removal of a Vice Chancellor without adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice is invalid.

ORDER :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Chancellor of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and the Agriculture University, Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner, who was Vice Chancellor of Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and ad hoc Vice Chancellor for the Agriculture University, Jodhpur, was removed.

2. The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the removal order on the ground that the enquiry report, which was formed the basis, was not an enquiry report as contemplated under Section 19 -A of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University Bikaner Act , 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1987”) and Section 25 -A of the Agriculture University Jodhpur Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”).

3. The main challenge to the impugned order is that the enquiry report, which formed the basis for the removal of the petitioner from the posts of Vice Chancellor and ad-hoc Vice Chancellor of both universities, was not furnished to the petitioner. Furthermore, no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action was provided to him. Consequently, he was denied the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to make a representation against the findings of the enquiry and the proposed action based on that report.

4. Another ground was that the entire procedure adopted by the Chancellor in passing the impugned order was contrary to the requirements of the statute, specifically Section 19 -A of the Act of 1987 and Section 25 -A of the Act of 2013. The powers invoked to appoint the Enquiry Committee were under Section 9 of both Acts. However, the Committee constituted under this provision was not related to the enquiry contemplated under -A of the Act of 1987 Act and -A of the Act 2013.

5. The other ground urged in the writ petition is with regard to manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Committee was constituted only to investigate alleged complaints. However, no specific charge was framed against the petitioner before initiating the enquiry under Sections 19 -A of the Act 1987 and 25-A of the Act of 2013 Act. Furthermore, the nature of the enquiry conducted by the Committee, which was constituted under Section 9 of both enactments, related only to a different purpose and was not for the purpose contemplated under -A or 25-A of the respective Acts. Therefore, the entire process undertook which was taken foundation for passing the impugned order is not sustainable.

6. The case of the respondents are that there are various allegations concerning willful omissions, abuse of power, and the continuation of the petitioner in the post of Vice Chancellor is detrimental to the interests of the University. In the enquiry conducted by the duly constituted Committee, the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity and in fact, he submitted an elaborate reply. After considering the reply, the Committee submitted its enquiry report, based on which the removal action was taken. Therefore, the Chancellor’s action cannot be said to violative of the statutory provisions that empower him to exercise such authority.

7. This Court has only heard arguments on the interim stay application. The grant of any interim order is basing on the establishment of prima facie case and other requirement for grant of interim orders.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the constitution of an Enquiry Committee under Section 9