1. Dr. Kailash Bihari retired on 30.11.2001 from the post of Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi. While in service, he was put under suspension on 16.9.1999 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. By order dated 8.10.1999 an Advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The delinquent filed representation dated 27.11.1999 challenging appointment of an Advocate as the Enquiry Officer, but the same was not considered. Hence, he filed CWJC No. 20 of 2000 (R) in this Court challenging the jurisdiction and powers of the Vice-Chancellor, who has suspended him. According to him, such power was vested with the Board of Governors of the Institute. It was alleged that action of the Vice-Chancellor was mala fide.

2. The learned single Judge by impugned order dated 29.11.2001 disposed of the writ application holding that the Vice-Chancellor had jurisdiction to place the appellant under suspension and, therefore, his suspension order was not illegal.

3. The appellant had filed writ applications earlier for his promotion as well as for admission of his wards, which were decided against the institute and the appellant got reliefs. Learned single Judge held that those fads alone cannot constitute any mala fide of law much less mala fide on facts. Grounds of mala fide taken by the appellant was, therefore, rejected on the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Vel Raj 1997 (2) SCC 708. It was held that Viee-Chancellor had jurisdiction to frame charges and initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant. However, the appointment of an Advocate as Enquiry Officer was set aside and the Institute was directed to proceed further in the departmental enquiry by appointing departmental person as the Enquiry Officer. Since the appellant was under suspension for more than two years and was also to superannuate on and from 30.11.2001, his order of suspension was revoked in the interest of justice and the respondents were directed to proceed and continue the departmental proceeding, if permissible after his retirement, under the law.

4. Mr. Sohail Anwar. Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the: Board of Governors being the appointing authority in the case of the appellant, the departmental proceeding could not have been initiated only by the Vice- Chancellor. It was further submitted that instead of revoking the order of suspension from 29.11.2001, on which date the Writ application was disposed of, it ought to have been revoked from 16.9.1999 itself, on which elate it was passed by the Vice Chancellor. It was further submitted that the Vice- Chancellors action against the appellant was mala fide.

5. We find that the learned single Judge revoked the order of suspension for the reason that the appellant was under suspension for more than two years and was also to superannuate on the next day i.e.. 30.11.2001. when the order of his suspension would have automatically been revoked. In our opinion, there was no occasion for revocation of the suspension order with retrospective effect from 16.9.1999, when it was passed.

6. Rule 19 related to the powers and functions of the Board of Governors Under Rule 19 (XXVI) the Board of Governors can delegate its powers of regulating and enforcing and imposing the penalty on the members to the Chairman, Director and other officers of the Institute. It is not in dispute that the post of Director of the Institute has been redesignated as Viec- Chancellor and, therefore, the powers relating to proper maintenance of discipline in the Institute is vested with the Vice-Chancellor. Under Regulation 12, on account of such delegated power the Vice-Chancellor is authorized to place a member of the academic stall of the Institute under suspension, where a disciplinary proceeding against him was contemplated or was pending. Hence, in our opinion, the learned single Judge rightly held that the Vice-Chancellor had jurisdicti