The powers of the Vice-Chancellor to revoke or modify a suspension order under Section 35(iv) of the State University Act must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the First Statutes, and the Committee of Management has the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and suspend a teacher based on the provisions of the First Statutes.

Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Degree College, Banda through its ex officio President the Committee of Management thereof are two petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi Shri Shiv Sharan Gupta are the two opposite parties. The challenge is to the order dated 24-11-1994 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi whereby the suspension order passed against Shri Shiv Sharan Gupta by the petitioners has been revoked.

2. Shri P. N. Saxena assists Shri R. K. Pandey for the petitioners, Shri Ashok Khare assisted by Shri Saumitra Singh for the opposite party Mo. 2 Shri R. P. Tiwari on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor have been heard for against this, petition at length.

3. The short facts are that the petitioners have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said Shiv Sharan Gupta who admittedly is a lecturer in sociology in the- college on the ground that he was found loitering in a drunken condition on 3-10-1994 when the F. I. R. consequent criminal case has been registered against him under Section 34 of the Police Act. This act or conduct of the teacher came for consideration before the Committee of Management in the meeting on 30-10-1994 a resolution was adopted unanimously that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against tm opposite party No. 2 he should be placed under suspension. This w-is represented by the opposite party No. 2, Shiv Sharan Gupta, before the Vice Chancellor who in exercise of the power conferred by Section 35 of the State University Act, for short Act hereinafter, revoked the order of suspen sion which is giving rise to this writ petition as mentioned above.

4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Vice Chancellor is palpably illegal for three reasons, firstly, it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, secondly, this order will be in the teeth of the provisions contained in sub-section (iv) of Section 35 of the Act because there is nothing in the order which may justify the exercise thereof at the instance of the Vice Chancellor, thirdly, the conduct of the teacher concerned being wholly unfit for a teacher of a degree college has been completely bye-passed by the Vice Chancellor.

5. It was contended on behalf of the University that since by the order dated 28-10-1994 the Vice Chancellor had intimated the petitioners that regular elections have not been held, the society or the committee of manage ment was not to be treated as recognized by the University, therefore, the Committee of Management could not have initiated proceedings against the teacher concerned. Shri Tiwari argued that the Vice Chancellor, by the impugned order, has obviously permitted to proceed with the enquiry; There is contradiction in the terms in the said argument. If the Vice Chancellor was not satisfied with the lawful continuance of the Committee of Management or society, he could not have even the continuance of the disciplinary pro ceedings to be legal. It does appear that the Vice Chancellor has, therefore, not applied his mind before revoking the suspension order. Shri Ashok Khare vehementally argued that in view of the provisions contained in the memorum of association, a copy of which is filed as Annexure I to the writ petition, the present Committee of Management cannot be treated to be a writ petition, the present Committee of Management cannot be treated to be a valid Committee of Management , therefore, no action whatsoever could have been taken by it whether it be disciplinary proceedings or the suspension order during its continuance. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of Supreme Court reported in Nand Deo Pandey v. Committee of Management others, AIR 1991 SC 413. Reference to this argument shall be made shortly here after.

6. The primary objective of an educational institution is to impart teaching to the students. W