Court No. - 36

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11701 of 2022

Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Chandra Mishra,Sr.

Advocate,Vibhu Rai

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri

Nitin Chandra Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

Manish Goyal learned Additional Advocate General assisted by

Sri A.K. Goel for the State respondents and Sri Avneesh

Tripathi learned counsel for the University.

Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated

06.7.2022 whereby the petitioner has been suspended and a

disciplinary enquiry has been required to be conducted by the

Commissioner, Lucknow Division.

Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is four

folds. First, it has been submitted that the fact allegations giving

rise to the impugned order is with respect to the functioning of

the petitioner as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University and

Registrar Allahabad State University. The Additional Chief

Secretary Government of U.P. is not the disciplinary authority

over the Vice Chancellor Lucknow University. That function

may have been discharged only by the Chancellor of that

University. Second, it has been submitted, in any case at present

the petitioner is posted and working as Registrar

Sampoornanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, he could not

have been proceeded against by the State Government with

respect to his functioning as Vice Chancellor of the Lucknow

University which charge he had given over in the year 2019

itself. Third, it has been submitted, in any case the allegations

as are contained in the further order of 06.7.2022 do not amount

to misconduct, which may warrant major penalty and if at all, it

may only lead to penalty for which proceedings may be

initiated by the Vice Chancellor. Reliance has been placed on

Section 12(1) read with Section 12(12) of the U.P. State

Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and

Rule 36 of the U.P. State Universities (Centralised)Service

Rules 1975. Last, it has been submitted, in any case the

Divisional Commissioner cannot act as the enquiry officer.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General would

submit, in the present case the petitioner, was a member of

centralised service, both at the time of occurrence giving rise to

the impugned suspension order and also continuously since

then, till date. At the relevant time, the petitioner was appointed

substantively as the Registrar of the Lucknow University. By

the order dated 11.11.2019 issued by the Chancellor, with

reference to his powers under Section 12(10) of the Act, the

petitioner was only given officiating charge of Vice Chancellor

of Lucknow University. The order makes it plain that the

petitioner would officiate as Vice Chancellor in addition to his

regular responsibilities as Registrar of that University.

Consequently, it has been submitted, the petitioner never left

the centralised service as may have taken him beyond the

clutches of the disciplinary authority under the Act and the

Rules namely, the State Government. An officiating charge was

only additional responsibility given to the petitioner but it did

not clothe the petitioner with the protection of Section 12(12) of

the Act being invoked. In that regard, reference has also been

made to pleadings contained in paragraph-10, 11 and 12 of the

writ petition.They read as below:

"10.That the petitioner is member of the Uttar Pradesh State University

centralised service.

11.That the recruitments and other service conditions of the petitioner are

governed by the Uttar Pradesh State University (Centralised) Service

Rules, 1975.

12. That the appointing authority for the post of Registrar in relation to

the petitioner is State Government. Petitioner was