1998 Supreme(MP) 431

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
PROF.NARENDRA KUMAR GOURAHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 1807 Of 1998
Decided On : 05/13/1998

The action under Section 52 of the Act is a statutory action which is subject to judicial review. The scope of judicial review in such emergency actions is limited to examining by the Court whether there was any material at all, for the action which is relevant and is not tainted by mala fide, perversity or irrational exercise of power.

Headnote:

UNIVERSITY - VICE-CHANCELLOR - REMOVAL - EMERGENCY POWER - MISUSE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - MALA FIDE - OBLIQUE PURPOSE - SECTION 52 OF M. P. VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADHINIYAM, 1973 - RELEVANT PROVISIONS - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION - FACTS - FINDINGS - DECISION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Professor Narendra Kumar Gouraha, was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Pt. Ravishanker Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. The University is constituted under the provisions of M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (the Act). The petitioner discovered several financial irregularities committed by the Registrar of the University. He brought those irregularities to the notice of the Chancellor. The Chancellor initiated action under Section 10 of the Act and appointed a one-member enquiry committee. The committee submitted an enquiry report which revealed commission of several serious financial irregularities by the Registrar. The petitioner received a letter from the Secretary of the Chancellor to place the report for consequent action before the Executive Council in its meeting to be called on 7-3-1997. The petitioner issued a formal notice calling all concerned and fixing 7-3-97 as the date of meeting of the Executive Council. The Registrar became apprehensive of a serious disciplinary and criminal action against him on the basis of decision of the Executive Council. He made hectic efforts by approaching the influential persons in power in the University and the State. His efforts fructified by promulgation of the impugned notifications on 23-2-97 i. e. a few days before the scheduled date of meeting of the Executive Council.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned action under Section 52 of the Act has been taken by the State Government with an oblique purpose to scuttle the legitimate steps taken by the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor to expose corruption in financial matters committed by the Registrar and to shield the latter. The State Government misused the provisions of Section 52 with an oblique purpose of avoiding observance of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act against the petitioner and thus achieving his removal from office without affording him any opportunity of meeting the charges levelled against him although they constituted the foundation of the impugned action.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned action under Section 52 of the Act is sustainable on the basis of the facts and material on record? 2. Whether the State Government misused the provisions of Section 52 with an oblique purpose of avoiding observance of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act against the petitioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The action under Section 52 of the Act is a statutory action which is subject to judicial review. The scope of judicial review in such emergency actions is limited to examining by the Court whether there was any material at all, for the action which is relevant and is not tainted by mala fide, perversity or irrational exercise of power. 2. The provisions contained in Section 52 of the Act are akin and comparable to emergency provisions contained in Article 356 of the Constitution which empower the President of India to impose his rule on the Government of a State by dissolving the elected body and assuming all functions of the Government by the President. Provision under Section 52 has been made to meet an emergent situation which cannot otherwise be remedied by other provisions of the Act. It is a drastic action justified only in extremely extraordinary circumstances. It is to be taken as a last resort when all other efforts on the part of the Government fail to remove the alleged mal-administration in the University. Resort to provisions of Section 52 is not contemplated by the Act as a remedial measure against particular conduct or misconduct of few functionaries, high or low, in the University. 3. The facts and material on the basis of which the impugned drastic action had been taken is not relevant for the purpose of exercise of power by the State. The financial irregularities found and reported by the enquiry committee were so serious that they required further probe or scrutiny by the Executive Council and consequent action by it. The Executive Council is a larger supreme executive body of the University consisting of important representatives of academicians within and outside the University including the Government. It would have been possible for the Government to have waited for the opinion of the Executive Council for which the meeting was already scheduled in near future. 4. The Chancellor has been made party to the petition as respondent No. 2. He has submitted a return. He has merely adopted the stand and averments taken by the State in its return. The affidavit has been sworn by the officer-in-charge on behalf of the Chancellor. The Governor acting as Chancellor can claim no immunity or privilege conferred on him qua Governor under the Constitution. In his separate return filed, the Chancellor has not disclosed whether he had expressed any opinion desiring action on the part of the State against the University under Section 52 of the Act. The letter written by him to the Chief Minister on 11-1-1997 cannot, therefore, be read as a report by him on the overall mal-functionings of the University and suggesting an action by the State under Section 52 of the Act. 5. From the scheme of the Act and the provisions contained in Section 14, it is to be noticed that there are two distinct actions contemplated one against the misdeeds and misconduct of the Vice-Chancellor for his removal and the other of invoking emergency provisions under Section 52 against the University as a whole. Material which may be relevant for taking action against the Vice-Chancellor under Section 14 cannot be utilised without compliance of the provisions of the said section for basing action against the University as a whole under Section 52 of the Act. 6. Power under Section 14 has been conferred for the purpose of removal of the Vice-Chancellor on proved misconduct but after giving him full opportunity of hearing. The removal of a Vice-Chancellor which can be made only after following principles of natural justice under Section 14 of the Act cannot be achieved by resort to the emergency provisions under Section 52 against the whole University of which Vice-Chancellor is one of the officers. Where the State Government as a repository of power under Section 52 of the Act, exercise that power for a purpose alien to that for which it was granted it would be misuse of that power for an oblique or collateral purpose.

Final Decision: The impugned notifications issued under Section 52 of the Act (Annexures-P/1, P/2 and P/3 dated 23-2-1997) are hereby quashed. In consequence thereof, the petitioner's appointment as Vice-Chancellor and appointment of other authorities and bodies of the University shall stand revived with all consequential beneficial effects, monetary and otherwise. The appointment of Professor H. R. Singh, respondent No. 4, as Vice-Chancellor of the University in place of the petitioner shall stand set aside.