Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13th October, 2009 whereby the petitioner has been suspended.

4. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as Reader in the University, Department of Biotechnology. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the University vide order dated 5th December, 2008. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 65975 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Court quashing the order dated 5th December, 2008. The University was directed to reconsider the matter and take necessary steps in accordance with law after affording fullest opportunity of hearing within a period of two months. After the order of this Court dated 1st September, 2009, the Executive Council of the University met to consider the case of the petitioner on 8th October, 2009 by Agenda Item No. 28 and decision was taken with regard to the petitioner. It was decided by the Executive Council that petitioner be permitted to join and he be suspended with immediate effect and for giving hearing disciplinary committee of three members under the Chairmanship of Vice Chancellor be constituted. In pursuance of the resolution of Executive Council dated 8th October, 2009 the suspension order was issued by the Registrar on 13th October, 2009.

5. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that suspension has been ordered due to the reason that a first information report dated 17th March, 2002 was lodged by the petitioner against the then officers of the University in which they had been charge-sheeted. It is submitted that the suspension order has been passed without any consideration. It is further submitted that in the same meeting dated 8th October, 2009 disciplinary committee has been constituted as required to be constituted in accordance with Statute 8.10 of the First Statute of the University and without there being any recommendation of the disciplinary committee as contemplated in Statute 16.07 of the First Statute of the University suspension has been ordered, which is without jurisdiction. It is contended that present case is fully covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sushil Prakash Gupta (Dr.) v. Executive Council, University of Allahabad and others (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2466.

6. Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the University, refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that Executive Council has full jurisdiction to direct for suspension. He submits that under Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 the Executive Council being appointing authority, can very well suspend the petitioner. Sri Pandey further submits that petitioner has remedy to file a reference before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It is further submitted that suspension ordered by the Executive Council be not interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the University has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the cases of Manvendra Mishra (Dr.) v. Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 702; Sripal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(2) ESC 1338 (All)(DB); Ram Chandra Pandey and others v. District Administrative Committee and others, 1998(1) ESC 105 and the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 53371 of 2006 (Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others).

8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The issue, which has been raise