Back
1981 Supreme(P&H) 127
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, S.C.Mital and Rajendra Nath Mittal JJ.
Dr.Bhagat Singh
Versus
Chancellor, Punjabi University, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 694 of 1981,
Decided On : MAY 22, 1981
The term of a Vice-Chancellor appointed under Section 9-A of the Punjabi University Act, 1961, cannot be cut short except in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
PUNJABI UNIVERSITY ACT - SECTION 9-A - VICE-CHANCELLOR - TENURE - RECALL - MALA FIDE - PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES - RULE 10.21 - DEPUTATION - TERMINATION - EXIGENCY OF SERVICE - NATURAL JUSTICE - PUNISHMENT - STATUS - EMOLUMENTS - FRINGE BENEFITS - MALA FIDES - REINSTATEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Dr. Bhagat Singh, was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University for a period of three years with effect from 30th November 1979. The appointment was made by the Chancellor of the University in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9-A of the Punjabi University Act, 1961. One of the conditions of appointment was that the petitioner would be on deputation till he retired from Government service. The petitioner attained the age of 55 years and was suffering a financial loss. Therefore, he sent a request to the Commissioner for Education and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, for retiring him from Government service with immediate effect. He also tendered three months pay in lieu of three months notice through a Bank draft. However, the Chief Minister and the Minister for Education did not like the petitioner's continuance as Vice-Chancellor and made efforts to disrupt the working of the University campus and harass the petitioner. Finally, on 19th February 1981, a few days before the expiry of three months from the date of notice, the petitioner was recalled by curtailing the period of tenure post and Prof. Guraowak Singh, Director of Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner challenged the order of recall on the grounds that it was contrary to Section 9-A of the Act and the Civil Services Rules, that the action was mala fide and based on extraneous considerations, and that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of recall was illegal and liable to be quashed. The Court observed that the petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor for a fixed term of three years under Section 9-A of the Act and his term could not be cut short except in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The Court further held that the order of recall was mala fide and was passed with the intention of punishing the petitioner. The Court also held that the order of recall amounted to a termination of the petitioner's appointment as Vice-Chancellor and that he was entitled to be reinstated.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's recall from the post of Vice-Chancellor was legal and valid? 2. Whether the order of recall was mala fide and based on extraneous considerations? 3. Whether the order of recall was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's recall from the post of Vice-Chancellor was illegal and liable to be quashed. The Court observed that the petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor for a fixed term of three years under Section 9-A of the Act and his term could not be cut short except in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 2. The Court further held that the order of recall was mala fide and was passed with the intention of punishing the petitioner. The Court observed that the petitioner was recalled a few days before the expiry of three months from the date of notice, which suggested that there was no exigency of service to recall him. 3. The Court also held that the order of recall was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause why he should not be recalled.
Final Decision: The Court accepted the writ petition and quashed the order of recall dated 19th February 1981. The Court also directed that the petitioner be reinstated as Vice-Chancellor.
RAIENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.
1. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was working as Director of Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, in 1979. He was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Punjabi University, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the University), vide notification dated 30th November, 1979 (Annexure P-l), issued by the Governor of Punjab and Chancellor of the University, in exercise of the powers conferred by cl. (1) of S. 9-A, Punjabi University Act, 1961 , (hereinafter called the Act), for a period of three years on the terms and conditions contained therein. One of the conditions of appointment was that he would be on deputation till he retired from Government service and thereafter his conditions of service would be notified again. He, it is stated, attained the age of 55 years and was suffering a financial loss and, therefore, he sent a request to the Commissioner for Education and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, Chandigarh, vide his letter dated 25th November, 1980, for retiring him from Government service with immediate effect. He also tendered three months pay in lieu of three months notice through a Bank draft. It is alleged that Mr. Darbara Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab, respondent 2, and Mr. Harcharan Singh Ajnala, Minister for Education, respondent 3, did not like the petitioner continuance as Vice-Chancellor on account of the fact that he had been appointed by the Akali Government. The petitioner further averred that with that object, an effort had been made to disrupt the working of the University campus and to harass the petitioner but when that effort did not result in forcing him to resign from that post, it was ordered on 19th February, 1981, a few days before the expiry of three months from the date of notice, to recall him by curtailing the period of tenure post and appoint Prof. Guraowak Singh, Director of Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, as the Vice-Chancellor. He claims that he was appointed for three years and this term had a statutory protection and could not be varied. It is next alleged that he has been recalled not in the exigency of the service, but mala fide and for extraneous considerations. He has challenged the aforesaid order inter alia on the grounds that it is contrary to S. 9-A of the Act and the Civil Services Rules, that the action is mala fide and based on extraneous considerations, and that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. The respondents have controverted the allegations of the petitioner. They have pleaded that the petitioner was on deputation till he retired from the Government service. Before retirement he was under the control of the Government and it could recall him at any time. They allege that it is the inherent right of the Government in respect of any Government servant sent on deputation to recall him. They have further pleaded that in view of the circumstances prevailing in the University, it was considered necessary to recall the petitioner. They have denied the allegation of mala fide.
3. It is contended by Mr. Rao that the petitioner was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University vide order dated 30th November, 1979, for a term of three years. According to him, the condition in the order dated 30th November, 1979, that he was on deputation till he retired was subservient to fixity of tenure of three years and does not confer any right on the Government to negotiate the said term. He has been recalled by the Government vide order dated 19th February, 1981, which amounts to cutting short his term. The learned counsel vehemently argues that the petitioner was appointed for a fixed term in terms of S. 9-A of the Act and, therefore, his term could not be cut short except in consonance with the principles of natural justice. He places reliance on Dr. Bool Chand, Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University v. The Chancellor, 1968 Serv. L. R. 119 : (1968 Lab I C 232) (S C).
4. We have du
