1970 Supreme(MP) 117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. and G.P. Singh, J.
Devi Shanker Dwivedi
Vs.
Vikram University, Ujjain, M.P. and another
Misc. P. No. 212 of 968
Decided On: 08.10.1970

Headnote:(1) University Laws - Vikram University Act, 1955 (MB) - S. 20 (n) - scope of the powers - residuary powers of the Syndicate - Syndicate may abolish administrative posts.

       A look at section 20 shows that clauses (a) to (m) contain the specific powers of the Syndicate. But these clauses do not exhaust the powers of the Syndicate, for by clause (n) it has also been given the residuary powers of the University. The Syndicate by virtue of this clause can "exercise all the powers of the University not otherwise provided by the Act or the Statutes." Even when the Syndicate exercises any power of the University which does not find place in clauses (a) to (m) the exercise of the power in view of clause (n) would be within the authority of the Syndicate unless it is shown that there is some otherwise provision in the Act or the Statutes in respect of such power. In other words, if such a power under the provisions of the Act or the Statutes made thereunder is to be exercised by a different authority, the Syndicate will not have authority to exercise the power. But if the Act or the Statutes do not specifically confer a power of the University on any other authority, the Syndicate will be competent to exercise such a power even though it is not specifically mentioned in clauses (a) to (m). The effect of enumeration of certain powers in clauses (a) to (m) is that these powers cannot be taken away by Statutes whereas a power that flows from the residuary clause (n) can be taken away if a statute is framed conferring the same power on some other authority. This difference between the specific powers and residuary powers arises because though all the clauses of section 20 are subject to the provisions of the Act, clause (n) alone is controlled by any otherwise provision in the Statutes. Since the University has power to create administrative and ministerial posts, it has necessarily the power to abolish any of these posts. This power of abolishing the posts is not specifically conferred on any authority and therefore, the authority to exercise this power must vest in the Syndicate because of clause (n). It is true that in clause (b) specific power is conferred on the Syndicate to abolish teaching posts and there is no similar clause specifically conferring the power to abolish administrative posts. That does not, however, lead to the conclusion that the Syndicate has no power to abolish administrative posts, for such a power falls under the residuary clause as there is no otherwise provision in the Act or Statutes. [Para 4]

       Neither Statute 26 nor clause 18 of the Ordinance makes any otherwise provision which can take away the power of the Syndicate under the residuary clause of section 20 to abolish administrative posts. [Para 6]

       (2) University Laws - Vikram University Act, 1955 (MB) - S. 42 - recommendations of the Senate on budget estimates - considered by the Syndicate and decision given - decision is of the Syndicate.

       The Syndicate under clause (7) of section 42 is no doubt the final authority for adopting the accounts and financial estimates, but it is bound to take into consideration the resolutions passed by the Senate on the budget estimates. The Syndicate was, therefore, bound to consider while finally adopting the financial estimates whether the recommendation made by the Senate for abolition of the posts in reducing the budget should be accepted or not. The final decision of acceptance of the budget and abolition of the posts was that of the Syndicate, although in reaching that decision it took into consideration the resolutions passed by the Senate. [Para 10]

       (3) University Laws - Vikram University Act, 1955 (MB) - S. 9 - powers of the Chancellor.

       The Chancellor has powers of the Senate or direction no authority to suspend the normal Syndicate by issuing any order or [Para 11]

       (4) University Laws - Vikram University Ordinance - Cl. 18 - interpretation of - no enquiry necessary when post is abolished - abolition of post and dismissal.

       Clause 18 of the Ordinance seeks to restrict the rights of the University to terminate the services of an employee or to dismiss an employee from service Termination of services and dismissal from service have different connotations, Dismissal from service conveys the idea of some fault or blemish of the employee; but termination of services as distinguished from dismissal involves no such fault or blemish. Out of the grounds mentioned in clause 18 the fourth ground of "Abolition of the Post" does not fit in with dismissal from service, for it involves no fault or blemish of the employee. Abolition of post is, however, a well known ground for termination of services. Thus, the intention of the makers of the Ordinance in Clause 18 seems to be to prohibit termination of services except on the ground of abolition of the post and similarly to prohibit dismissal from service except on the grounds of neglect of duty, misconduct or unfitness, mental or physical. Inquiry contemplated under the clause can be relevant only when action taken is one of dismissal on some fault or unfitness of the employee. It is only in such cases that the employee can be found guilty. But when the only action taken is termination of services on the ground of abolition of post, the employee cannot be found guilty and no inquiry is needed. [Para 14]