The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of a registered graduate must comply with the requirements of Section 37 of the Act, 1947, including the need for concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Senate and a complete quorum during the Senate meeting.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Respondent-Munish Pal Singh @ Munish Verma was aggrieved by impugned order dated 20.12.2019, whereby, his name was ordered to be removed from the Register of Registered Graduates and resolutions dated 27.09.2015 passed by the Senate of the University accepting report of a Committee as well as resolutions dated 10.09.2017 and 26.05.2019 whereby the Senate has approved the recommendations made by the Committee. Said impugned order dated 20.12.2019 as well as resolutions dated 10.09.2017, 26.05.2019 and 27.09.2015 were challenged by the respondent by way of filing CWP No.5493 of 2020 before this Court. Said petition was partly allowed and impugned order dated 20.12.2019 as well as resolution dated 26.05.2019 passed by the Senate were struck down vide judgment dated 30.07.2020.

2. Said judgment of learned Single Bench dated 30.07.2020 has been challenged by way of filing the present Letters Patent Appeal (here-in-after called as 'the LPA') by the appellant-University.

3. As per case of respondent Munish Pal Singh @ Munish Verma, he was elected as a representative out of Graduate Constituency to the Senate of the University. His name was removed from the Register of Registered Graduates vide resolution dated 27.09.2015 passed by the Senate of the University by accepting the report of the Committee as the recommendations made by the Committee were approved by the Senate. As per stand of the respondent, he was removed as he being a whistle blower had been raising certain important issues relating to working of the University and its budget. Due to that reason, he was made victim by the University. A Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University for conducting inquiry and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Committee were approved by the Senate at his back. Learned Single Judge while accepting his claim has recorded a finding that the impugned inquiry as well as resolution were contrary to the provisions of Section 37 of the Punjab University Act, 1947 (here-in-after called as 'the Act, 1947'). It was also held by the learned Single Bench that the requirement was of 2/3 rd members of the Senate but it was not passed by the 2/3 rd members of the Senate.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-University has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the punishment of removal of name of respondent from the Register of Registered Graduates has been set aside only on technical grounds and in case, there is non-compliance of Section 37 of the Act, 1947, learned Single Judge should have remitted the case to the Senate for fresh decision. Learned counsel also submits that the judgment of learned Single Judge is self contradictory and the findings have been recorded without taking into consideration the written statement filed by the appellant-University. Even no replication was filed by respondent to the written statement filed by the appellant-University. Learned counsel also submits that while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, the affidavit dated 01.07.2020 filed by the appellant-University was also not taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that neither any demand was there on the part of the respondent nor by the Senators/Members for putting the matter for voting. It was a unanimous decision of all the members of the Senate who attended the meeting dated 26.05.2019.

5. Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is self speaking and a detailed findings have been given while discussing the scope of Section 37 of the Act, 1947. It was a case of mandatory requirement of 2/3 rd of the total members of the Senate. Mr. Jain further submits that earlier also the matter was referred to the Committee but the final report was not signed by any member of the Committee. The report of the 1 st Committee was accepted by the