Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. K. Yog, J.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ATARRA MAHAVIDYALAYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 23896 Of 2003
Decided On : 05/29/2003
A.N.SINHA, Ashok Khare, ASHOK MISRA, S.D.SHUKLA.
The legal principle established is that a suspension under Section 58 (2) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 must be based on valid and specific reasons recorded by the State Government, and cannot be justified by general or casual allegations.
Headnote:
Suspension - Committee of Management - U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, Section 58 (2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the suspension of the Committee of Management of the College by the State Government, alleging that the suspension was arbitrary and exceeded the jurisdiction, and that the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice as required under Section 57 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order of suspension failed to satisfy the requirement of recording reasons under Section 58 (2) of the Act, and that the charges in the show cause notice did not warrant immediate suspension without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension of the Committee of Management was in consonance with the provisions of Section 58 (2) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a drastic action of suspension based on casual and general reasons without proper application of mind cannot satisfy the legal requirement, and that the State Government alone had to supply reasons by recording them in the order of suspension.
Final Decision: The impugned order of suspension was set aside, and the parties were directed to appear and file their respective written representations, after which the matter was to be decided afresh by the concerned authority in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) SHRI A. N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Committee of Management, Attarra mahavidyalaya, Atarra, District Banda called the committee of Management through its president-Jagpat Singh; learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and , Sri ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashok Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Nand lal Shukla (who had filed an application of impleadment) as well as Ms. Sadhna Upadhyay, advocate on behalf of S. K. Agrawal claiming to be the Joint Secretary of the Committee of management of the College, present and heard; also perused the record of the case.
( 2 ) DR. Nand Lal Shukla and Sri S. K. Agrawal filed impleadment applications which have been rejected by separate orders of date but said persons have been allowed to be heard as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 5-A, Rules of Court.
( 3 ) THE preliminary objection, raised by Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, on the first day of hearing of the case, that Ghan Shyam Singh (who had originally filed the Writ Petition on behalf of the Committee of Management of the College claiming to be the Manager) had no authority to represent the Committee of Management of the College, no more survives since Jagpat Singh, the undisputed President of the Committee of Management of the College, subsequently filed an application for amendment of the writ petition (which is on record) to join and represent the committee of Management. The opposite parties did not claim to file counter affidavit to the same except submitting their protest orally. Since none came forward to represent Committee of management of the College except Jagpat Singh as President, the Court allowed the said amendment Application.
( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
( 5 ) PETITIONER contends that the State Government has acted arbitrarily and exceeded in its jurisdiction in passing the impugned notice/order No. 1842/sattar-2-2003-3 (20)/2002, dated 23rd May, 2003 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition), called the Order of Suspension while suspending Committee of Management of the College without affording opportunity of hearing against the charges contained in the said order.
( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also complains that he was not served with the order/notice no. 1838/sattar-2-2003-3 (20)/2002, dated May 23, 2003 under Section 57, U. P. State universities Act, 1973, (called the Act ). Copy of said order, has been, however, brought on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit (sworn by aforementioned Dr. Nand Lal Shukla) filed in support of his impleadment application and hereinafter called show Cause Notice.
( 7 ) IT is interesting to note that the above show Cause Notice was not received by the petitioner as submitted by his Counsel and instead a copy of show Cause Notice is being produced from the possession of the aforementioned Dr. Nand Lal Shukia. Moreover, order of suspension/annexure-l to the writ petition itself mentions that Notice was being issued and not that it had been already issued. Thisindicates that petitioner was not made available with the copy of show Cause Notice while order of Suspension was served upon the Committee of management of the College. Section 58 (2) of the Act reads : "where the State Government while issuing a notice under Section 57 is of opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the College, it may suspend the Management, which shall thereupon cease to function, and make such arrangement as it thinks proper for managing the affairs of the College and its property till further proceedings are completed: provided that no such order shall remain in force for more than six months from the date of actual taking over the Management in pursuance of such order: provided farther that in computation of the said period of six months, the time during which the operation of the order was suspended by any order of the High Court
