SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(All) 1180

2002 (1) AWC 461
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
G. P. Mathur and R. P. Misra, JJ.
C.M.W.P. No. 23118 of 2000
Decided on December 20, 2001
Ramesh Chandra and others
Versus
Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad and others

Advocates:
Counsel for the Petitioners: G. K. Singh, V. K. Singh and R. N. Singh.
Counsel for the Respondents: S. C., R. G. Padia and P. Padia.

The power to suspend, dismiss, or remove any person appointed by the University is vested in the Executive Council.

Headnote:

Suspension - University Employees - State Universities Act, 1973, Section 20, 21 - Statutes 2.06, 2.07, 8.10, 8.11 - The court discussed the relevant statutory provisions and held that the power to suspend, dismiss, or remove any person appointed by the University is vested in the Executive Council. The court also emphasized that the power to enforce discipline includes the power to take disciplinary action like suspension, reversion, or termination from service. The judgment highlighted the principle that the authority entitled to appoint a public servant is entitled to suspend him pending an inquiry into his conduct. The court also rejected the argument that the suspension order should have been passed by the Registrar, emphasizing that the Statutes do not mandate such a requirement.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, employees of the University of Allahabad, sought to quash their suspension and the appointment of an Enquiry Officer following an incident of assault and property damage. The petitioners argued that the suspension order was illegal as it was passed by the Executive Council, depriving them of a forum for appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the power to suspend, dismiss, or remove any person appointed by the University is vested in the Executive Council. It held that the order of suspension passed by a higher authority does not vitiate the dismissal or suspension order. The court also rejected the argument that the suspension order should have been passed by the Registrar, emphasizing that the Statutes do not mandate such a requirement. The court also directed the expeditious conclusion of the inquiry against the petitioners.

Issues: The issues included the legality of the suspension order passed by the Executive Council, the authority entitled to pass the suspension order, and the applicability of parallel provisions of U.P. Government Rules for determining the quantum of subsistence allowance.

Ratio Decidendi: The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the power to suspend, dismiss, or remove any person appointed by the University is vested in the Executive Council. The judgment also emphasized that the authority entitled to appoint a public servant is entitled to suspend him pending an inquiry into his conduct. Additionally, the court highlighted that the order of suspension passed by a higher authority does not vitiate the dismissal or suspension order.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the expeditious conclusion of the inquiry against the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

G. P. Mathur, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the resolution dated December 7, 1999 of the Executive Council of Allahabad University, the order dated December 8, 1999 of the Registrar of the University and also the order dated January 28, 2000 of the Vice Chancellor. The parties have exchanged affidavits and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

2. The ten petitioners are employees of Institute of Correspondence and Continuing Education of University of Allahabad. According to the University, some employees of the Institute entered the office of the Registrar of the University on December 3, 1999 and after abusing and threatening him, lifted a chair and threw the same on him and also physically assaulted him, They also broke the telephone, furniture and the glass top of the table. Some persons present in the vicinity intervened and saved the Registrar from being assaulted further. While leaving, the said employees held out further threats. Property worth several thousand rupees was damaged in the incident. Sri A. N. Seth, the Registrar of the University then lodged a written F.I.R. of the incident at the concerned police station on the same day. A meeting of the Executive Council of University was convened on December 7, 1999, where the report of the Registrar was considered. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the incident, a resolution was passed that 11 employees involved in the incident may be placed under suspension with immediate effect. A further resolution was passed authorising the Vice Chancellor to appoint an officer for holding an inquiry and taking appropriate action against the persons found guilty. Thereafter, a formal order of suspension was passed and was communicated to the delinquent employees on December 8, 1999. The Vice Chancellor passed an order on January 28, 2000, appointing Justice R. R. Misra, a retired Judge of Allahabad High Court, as the Enquiry Officer to hold inquiry regarding the aforesaid incident which took place in the office of the Registrar on December 3, 1999. The petitioners seek quashing of the resolution of the Executive Council directing their suspension with immediate effect, the order communicating their suspension and also the order by which the Enquiry Officer has been appointed.

3. The principal submission of Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the relevant Statutes of Allahabad University, the competent authority for passing the order of suspension was the Registrar and against his decision there is a right of appeal to the Disciplinary Committee and then the matter has to be considered by the Executive Council. The passing of the resolution by the Executive Council for suspending the petitioners, it is urged, had deprived the petitioners a forum where they could prefer an appeal and also subsequent consideration of the matter by the Executive Council and, therefore, the impugned resolution and the order of suspension is illegal. Dr. R. G. Padia, who has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (for short University) has submitted that under the relevant statutory provisions, the power of appointment is with the Executive Council and in view of Section 16 of U. P. General Clauses Act, the said power would include the power to suspend, dismiss or remove any person who has been appointed. Therefore, the action taken by the Executive Council, which is the highest body of the University, cannot be challenged on the ground that the power of suspending an employee was also vested with a subordinate authority or some one lower in hierarchy.

4. Before examining the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to briefly refer to some of the statutory provisions. Section 20 of the State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) gives the constitution of the Executive Council and it consists of the Vic




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top