The Vice Chancellor's jurisdiction was limited to ensuring no gross illegality or injustice was committed by the Management, and the refusal to grant approval was only justified in cases of patent arbitrariness or violation of the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

We have heard learned counsels and proceed to dispose of this writ petition.

2. The petitioners-Chinmaya Education Society and its Committee of Management have preferred the present writ petition to assail the order No. HNBGU/15/2023 dated 10.04.2023 issued by respondent no.2, i.e. the Registrar of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Central University, Srinagar, Garhwal. The petitioners further seek a direction to uphold the penalty imposed by the Committee of Management and the petitioner-college upon respondent no.3.

3. The brief background facts are that the petitioner no.1-Society setup petitioner No.2-Chinmaya Degree College, Haridwar, in the year 1989. Earlier it was affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. Consequent upon the formation of the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner-College came to be affiliated to the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (for short ‘HNBGU’), Srinagar, Uttarakhand. In the year 2009, when the Central Universities Act, 2009 was enacted, HNB Garhwal University was declared as a Central University, and is currently governed by the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009. Petitioner no.1-Chinmaya Education Society, which is a unit of a trust, is the sponsoring body of petitioner no.2-Chinmaya Degree College. Respondent no.1 is the Vice Chancellor of the HNBGU, which is the parent University of petitioner no.2. Respondent no.2, as aforesaid, is the Registrar of the said University, and respondent no.3 was serving as the Principal of petitioner no.2-College.

4. The case of the petitioners is that certain wrong doings of respondent no.3, while he was serving as the Principal of petitioner no.2-college came to light, in respect whereof, one charge-sheet was issued to him on 25.07.2020. Thereafter, certain information was gathered under the Right to Information Act, which brought to forth further acts of misconduct of respondent no.3, and consequently, the second charge-sheet was issued to him on 14.08.2020. Thereafter, respondent no.3 was suspended from his position as the Principal of petitioner no.2-College on 12.09.2020, and after his suspension, further materials emerged from his office, which led to the issuance of third charge-sheet on 25.11.2020. The three charge-sheets issued to respondent no.3 were then sought to be inquired by an Inquiry Officer appointed by the Management.

5. Respondent no.3 raised an issue of bias against the Inquiry Officer, due to which, he resigned. Eventually, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, namely, Mr. Justice (Retd.) R.K. Gauba, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who proceeded to conduct de novo inquiry, as directed to him. Respondent no.3 again made allegations of bias against the Inquiry Officer. Those allegations were rejected. Respondent no.3 states that he raised his grievance, against the rejection of his allegation of bias, before the Vice Chancellor, namely, respondent no.1. However, that grievance remained pending. Thereafter, respondent no.3 chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings, which proceeded ex parte. The Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the petitioner-Management in support of the charges levelled against respondent no.3, and he prepared a detailed inquiry report, finding respondent no.3 guilty of the charges levelled against him.

6. The petitioners then, in compliance of the First Statutes of the HNB Garhwal University, which were framed in the year 1978, sought the approval of the Vice Chancellor in terms of Statute 17.06 (3). We may reproduce Statute 17.06(3), insofar as it is relevant. The same reads as follows:-

“17.06 (1) No order dismissing, removing, or terminating the services of a teach on any ground mentioned in Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Statute 17.04 (except in the case of a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude or of abolition of post) shall be passed unless a charge has been framed against the teacher and communicated to him with a statement of