Point of Law: Section 13 of University Act, 2000 clearly states that Registrar shall be a full time officer of University and shall be appointed by State Government.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned State Counsel representing the respondent nos.1 and 4, Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Tiwari for the respondent no.2, Shri L.P. Misra, leaned counsel representing the respondent no.3 and Shri Atul Dwivedi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.5.

2. Proceedings of this petition have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Chancellor of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Chancellor'), whereby the petitioner, who was appointed as Registrar of the said University, has been placed under suspension.

Another order which is under challenge in this writ petition is dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Chancellor constituting a three member inquiry committee for inquiring into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner while working as Registrar of the University.

3. It has been argued by Shri Gaurav Mehrotra that the petitioner is a member of Provincial Civil Services and the conditions of his service including disciplinary matters are governed by the provisions contained in the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1982') and Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to 'Rules 1999'). It has been argued further by Shri Mehrotra that under the Rules 1982, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Hon'ble the Governor and in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975 framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India, matters relating to disciplinary action etc. of the members of Provincial Civil Service has to go up to Hon'ble the Chief Minister for approval and, accordingly, the Chancellor, not being his appointing authority, is not empowered either to place him under suspension or to constitute any inquiry committee.

4. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that suspension of a government servant can be resorted to in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 4 of Rules 1999, according to which a government servant can be placed under suspension only at the discretion of the appointing authority and not at the instance of any other authority. His further submission is that disciplinary proceedings under Rules 1999 can be instituted only by the disciplinary authority and not by any other authority. His submission, thus, is that since the Chancellor of the University is not the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, the order of suspension and the order constituting the inquiry committee, which are under challenge in this writ petition, are completely without jurisdiction.

5. It has further been argued by Shri Mehrotra that the petitioner's appointment as Registrar in the University was made on deputation and as per well settled service jurisprudence governing the disciplinary action against a deputationist, it is the parent department which is empowered to initiate disciplinary proceeding even in a case where the deputationist is said to have misconducted himself while working with the borrowing department. In this view, the submission is that even if the petitioner, who has been working as Registrar in the University which is the borrowing department, was found to have misconducted himself while discharging his functions as Registrar of the University, the authorities of the University including the Chancellor could have apprised the said alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner to the State Government which is the parent department of the petitioner and it is only in the discretion of the State Government any disciplinary proceeding could have been instituted. In such a view, the submission is that both the o