Satyen Vaidya, Judge

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

(a) That the impugned orders dated 21.01.2003, Annexure A-5, 29.03.2003, Annexure A-7 and order dated 15.10.2003, Annexure A-9, respectively may be ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

(b) That the enquiry may be declared as void ab initio.

(c) That any delegation of power by the Board of Management to the Vice Chancellor for initiating departmental proceedings against the teacher/ applicant whose appointing authority is Board of Management may be declared illegal.

(d) That the applicant may be ordered to be reinstated from the date of his compulsorily retirement and be ordered to be entitled to all consequential benefits.

2. The orders challenged by way of instant petition are as under:

(i) The order dated 21.01.2003 issued by the Board of Management whereby the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired from the service of the University with immediate effect.

(ii) The order dated 29.03.2003 passed by the Chancellor of the university dismissing the service appeal of the petitioner.

(iii) The order dated 23.10.2003 passed by the Chancellor of the university dismissing the review petition of the petitioner.

3. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Assistant Soil Chemist in CSK H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur (hereinafter referred to as the “University”). Later, he was appointed as Head of Department of Soil Sciences of the University on 15.05.1998. The petitioner was a strict disciplinarian and for such reason the members of the staff of the University and the colleagues of the petitioner conspired and submitted complaints against him. On such complaints, an inquiry was entrusted to Dr. M.R. Thakur, who vide report dated 25.06.1999 not only exonerated the petitioner, but also indicted the complainant. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated as Head of Department of Soil Sciences w.e.f.01.07.1999.

4. Another inquiry was instituted against the petitioner and Sh. S.N. Joshi was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 03.07.1999. The petitioner was again removed from the post of Head of Department of Soil Sciences. The petitioner assailed the action of the respondents in removing him from Headship of the department of Soil Sciences by filing O.A. No.2240 of 1991 before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “Tribunal”). On 23.07.1999, the Tribunal by an interim order directed the University to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the O.A. As a consequence, Sh. S.N. Joshi did not proceed further with the inquiry.

5. On 30.06.2000 Kanwar Hari Singh, IAS retired was appointed as Inquiry Officer into the charges framed against the petitioner. Inquiry report was submitted on 30.04.2001. A copy of inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 19.01.2002, that too, after repeated representations made by the petitioner. The petitioner was required to file reply to the inquiry report. The petitioner showed compliance. The reply of the petitioner was placed before the Board of Management (for short, “BOM”) without the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner. On 02.01.2003, the BOM issued a notice to the petitioner proposing penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply/representation. The BOM imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service with immediate effect.

6. The petitioner filed appeal to the Chancellor of the University, which was dismissed on 29.03.2003. The petitioner further preferred review petition before the Chancellor of the University, which was also rejected vide order dated 15.10.2003.

7. In the above narrated factual backdrop, the petitioner has raised following grounds of challenge:

(a) That the inquiry was void ab initio for lack of inherent jurisdiction. The appointing authority of the petitioner was BOM and the Vice-Chancellor was not competent to order the holdin