Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 893
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Rajendra Menon, J.
N.N.Pathak (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya & Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 11875 of 2010 (S), also decided W.P. No. 16882 of 2011 (S), W.P. No. 20202 of 2011 (S)
Decided On : 05-07-2012
For petitioner:Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rohit Arya, Senior Advocate , Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate
For respondent University:Mr. P.N. Dubey with Mr. Praveen Dubey, Advocate
For State :Mr. B.P. Pandey, Deputy Govt. Advocate
The withdrawal of nomination and powers was found to be arbitrary and illegal, and the departmental inquiry and the procedure followed were vitiated for breach of statutory provisions, leading to the quashing of the action taken by the University.
Headnote:
HOD - University Powers - Section 31(3) of Act of 1963, Rules of 1966 - The court quashed the orders withdrawing the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner and cancelling his nomination as HOD under section 31(3) of the Act of 1963. The court found that the withdrawal of nomination and powers was arbitrary and illegal, and the departmental inquiry and the procedure followed were vitiated for breach of statutory provisions. The court held that the action was taken on the basis of a finding recorded in an inquiry which was wholly illegal, and the entire action stood vitiated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior professor at the University, had his powers as Head of the Department (HOD) withdrawn and his nomination cancelled. The action was based on allegations of misconduct, including not implementing a revised course curriculum, not attending meetings, and misusing a university vehicle. The petitioner challenged the action, claiming it was arbitrary and illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the withdrawal of nomination and powers was arbitrary and illegal, and the departmental inquiry and the procedure followed were vitiated for breach of statutory provisions. The court held that the action was taken on the basis of a finding recorded in an inquiry which was wholly illegal, and the entire action stood vitiated.
Issues: The issues involved were the withdrawal of the petitioner's powers and nomination, the legality of the departmental inquiry and the procedure followed, and the justification for the action taken by the University.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withdrawal of nomination and powers was arbitrary and illegal, and the departmental inquiry and the procedure followed were vitiated for breach of statutory provisions. The court found that the action was taken on the basis of a finding recorded in an inquiry which was wholly illegal, and the entire action stood vitiated.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders withdrawing the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner and cancelling his nomination as HOD under section 31(3) of the Act of 1963. The respondents were directed to restore to the petitioner all the benefits to which he was entitled.
Judgment
As all these petitions are by the same petitioner i.e... Dr. N.N. Pathak, the questions involved therein are related to each other and as the facts are also common to a larger extent, all these petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. In Writ Petition No.11875/2010(S), challenge made is to orders-dated 18.8.2010 and 6.8.2010 - Annexures P/23 and P/24, by which the powers of Head of the Department (Forestry) in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur is taken over and the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner are curtailed. By the same order, the statutory nomination of the petitioner as Head of the Department (hereinafter referred to as 'HOD') under section 31(3) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1963') is cancelled with immediate effect.
3. In Writ Petition No.16882/2011(S), challenge is made to the same action as is contained in Annexure P/9 dated 22.9.2011, by which respondent No.3 is nominated as Head of the Department (Forestry) under section 31(3) after the nomination of the petitioner was cancelled.
4. Finally, in Writ Petition No.20202/2011(S), challenge is made to an order-dated 17.10.2011 - Annexure P/1, passed by respondent No.2 - Vice Chancellor and Disciplinary Authority, by which punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect in accordance to the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 1966') is imposed.
5. To consider the question with regard to challenge made to these orders, certain facts may be referred to.
6. Petitioner is working in the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur and claims to be the senior most Professor in the University. He holds the post of Professor (Forestry) and it is stated that he was duly selected and appointed to the post of Professor on regular basis after an All India advertisement was issued, he was selected for regular appointment as a Professor in the year 2001 in comparison to various other Professors like respondent No.3 in W.P.No. 16882/2011(8), who were either appointed to the said post in accordance to the Career Advancement Scheme or Merit Promotion Scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission. By highlighting the academic credentials of the petitioner, various qualifications acquired by him in the field of Agriculture and Forestry, emphasis is made on the brilliant academic career of the petitioner to highlight that he is one of the senior most Professor, with a brilliant academic record. It is thereafter said that a regularly appointed Professor ranks senior than a Professor appointed under the various schemes formulated by the University Grants Commission. Accordingly, placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. Rashmi Shrivastava Vs. Vikram University and others, (1995) 3 SCC 653 and certain other judgments of the Supreme Court, it is tried to be emphasized that in the matter of interse seniority and the matter of hierarchy in the cadre, a regularly appointed Professor ranks higher to a person appointed to the cadre under the Career Advancement Scheme or the Merit Promotion Scheme.
7. Be it as it may be, the fact remains that the petitioner was selected and was working as Professor (Forestry) in the respondent University after his nomination as HOD in accordance to the provisions of section 31 (3) of the Act of 1963, as per order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 10.4.2001 in the College of Agriculture, Jabalpur. According to the petitioner after his nomination as HOD, he continued to work in the same capacity till cancellation of his appointment after a period of 10 years on 5.7.2011 vide Annexure P/23. During this period he had taken various steps for advancement of the department and at every point of time the University had appreciated his endeavour for betterment of the department.
8. Subsequently, it is stated that due to cer
