2009(1) Supreme 101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Committee of Management & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7319 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.16716 of 2006]
Decided on : 16-12-2008
1990 (Supp.) SCC 773 – Distinguished.
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction – More so when the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 20 and 21)
(1998) 8 SCC 1 – Relied upon.
(2000) 1 UPLBEC 702 – Cited with approval.
(c) University Law – Minority Institution – Regulatory powers of Vice Chancellor – Whether such power has been properly exercised or not is intricate question of law – High court should not have refused to exercise its jurisdiction. (Paras 24 and 25)
(1986) 4 SCC 707; (1987) 2 SCC 516; (1987) 4 SCC 691; (1999) 3 SCC 676; (2005) 6 SCC 537 – Referred.
Facts of the case :
1. Appellants run a Muslim Minority Post Graduate College, commonly known as Mumtaz Post Graduate College at Lucknow. Third respondent, viz., Dr. Mukhtar Nabi Khan was appointed as Principal of the said college.
2. A preliminary enquiry was held pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in a meeting held on 02nd May 2003.
3. Third respondent was placed under suspension. Vice-Chancellor of the University was also duly informed thereabout.
4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20th November 2005.
5. Respondent no.1 passed an order on 31st December 2005 staying the operation of the order of suspension.
6. On or about 04th February 2006, the Managing Committee, upon hearing the respondent no.3 in person, passed a resolution that he be removed from service. A report thereabout was sent to the 1st respondent who by reason of an order dated 07th/12th July 2006, refused to grant approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee in regard to the removal of respondent no.3.
7. Challenging the legality and/or validity of the said order, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court which, by reason of the impugned order, has been dismissed.
Finding of the Court :
High court should not have refused to exercise its jurisdiction.
Result : Appeal allowed. Matter remitted back.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants run a Muslim Minority Post Graduate College, commonly known as Mumtaz Post Graduate College (for short, ‘the college’) at Lucknow. It is affiliated with the University of Lucknow (for short, ‘the University’). Third respondent, viz., Dr. Mukhtar Nabi Khan was appointed as Principal of the said college. On an allegation that a prima facie case had been made out against the said respondent of having committed various acts of misconduct, a preliminary enquiry was held pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in a meeting held on 02nd May 2003. For the said purpose a Committee of three senior members was constituted. The said Committee submitted its report on or about 30th May 2003.
3. Appellants, upon consideration of the said report, by a resolution adopted in a meeting held on 05th June 2003, took a decision to hold a proper disciplinary enquiry. He was placed under suspension. Vice-Chancellor of the University was also duly informed thereabout.
4. A charge-sheet containing eight charges was issued against the respondent no.3. He, however, did not file any show cause/reply thereto.
5. Upon recording evidence of some witnesses, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 03rd March 2004 opining that the respondent no.3 was prima facie guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, causing wrongful gain to himself and causing wrongful loss to the institution. Relevant portion of the report of the Enquiry Committee is quoted heretobelow :
“In view of the aforesaid findings of the inquiry committee the charged employee can be said to be guilty of misconduct, dereliction of duty, acting with malafide intentions to obtain wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the college and his unbecoming conduct has resulted in great loss of goodwill and reputation to the college and thus the college was being continuously mismanaged by him.”
6. On or about 17th May 2004, a copy of the said Enquiry Report was sent to the 3rd respondent. He was also informed that a meeting of the Managing Committee would be held on 01st June 2004 wherein the said report shall be considered. Respondent no.3, pursuant to the said notice, appeared before the Managing Committee on the said date. He availed the opportunity of being personally heard. He also filed his written submissions.
7. By a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the appellant-institution in a meeting held on 05th June 2004, a decision was taken to issue a second show cause notice to respondent no.3 pursuant whereto a notice was issued to him on 15th June 2004. He submitted his reply on 23rd June 2004, inter alia, contending that he had not got an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. A fresh opportunity was, therefore, granted to him. The Enquiry Officer was also changed. A senior advocate of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Respondent no.3, however, made allegations of bias against him whereupon another Enquiry Officer, viz., Aftab Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate was appointed. The said Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20th November 2005.
8. Respondent no.1, however, passed an order on 31st December 2005 staying the operation of the order of suspension. On or about 04th February 2006, the Managing Committee, upon hearing the respondent no.3 in person, passed a resolution that he be removed from service. A report thereabout, as envisaged under the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’), was sent to the 1st respondent. By reason of an order dated 07th/12th July 2006, the Vice-chancellor refused to grant approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee in regard to the removal of respondent no.3 stating :
“It is clear from the decision of management committee of the College and related records/papers that removal from service of Dr. M.N. Khan, Principal Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree Coll
Manvendra Misra (Dr.) v. Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
Yunus Ali Sha v. Mohamed Abdul Kalam
Mrs. Y. Theclamma v. Union of India
Christian Medical College Hospital Employees’ Union v. Christian Medical College Vellore Association
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.