High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196620 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15195 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- J.B. Mahajan Degree College, Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur Through Its Manager Sri Ishwar Chand Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Sharma,Avanish Mishra,Bal Mukund Singh,Nitish Kant Srivastava Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Heard Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri H.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the first respondent, Sri Bal Mukund Singh appears for respondents no. 2 and 3 University and Sri Avanish Mishra, along with Sri Anurag Sharma who appears for the respondent no.4. The parties before this Court and made a statement at bar that they do not propose to file any response to the writ petition as they are armed with the instructions which are self sufficient for disposal of the writ petition. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage without seeking any response.
Decision
The case of the writ petitioner is J.B. Mahajan Degree College, Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur is an institution affiliated to the Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. According to the writ petitioner the fourth respondent, Dr Madhup Kumar was selected as a Principal of the institution in question pursuant to the recommendation of Director of Higher Education, U.P. dated 22.10.2021 against advertisement no. 49 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Selection Commission and he was issued appointment order on 16.11.2021 and accorded joining on 6.12.2021. In para 12 of the writ petition it has been asserted that the work and conduct of the fourth respondent was unbecoming of the Principal of the institution in question as he indulged him financial misappropriation indiscipline and transgressed his authority beyond its power. Explanation was sought from him however the fourth respondent did not submit any explanation worth consideration thereafter the petitioner Committee of Management pursuant to the resolution dated 6.7.2023 decided to initiate inquiry against him and a charge sheet dated 12.8.2023 was served upon the fourth respondent containing 9 charges and he was suspended on 12.8.2023. However according to the writ petitioner on 27.8.2023 the third respondent, Vice Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur proceeded to pass an order whereby in exercise of the powers under Section 35(2)(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 on the basis of the complaint of Mahavidyalay Prachar Parishad dated 16.8.2023 proceeded to stay the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 12.8.2023 passed by the petitioner Committee of Management. Questioning the said order the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order dated 27.8.2023 suffers from various illegalities firstly the same has been passed without putting to the writ petitioner Committee of Management to notice, secondly, Mahavidyalaya Prachar Parishad has no right or locus to intervene in the proceedings which is inter se between the writ petitioner and four respondents, thirdly, the order in question is without authority and in excess of jurisdiction as such type of order could not have been passed under Section 35(2) (4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, fourthly on the merits of the charges it is being further sought to be argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that the charges themselves were gave and serious enough warranting continuance of the suspension of the fourth respondent and fifthly it is contended that the third respondent had no authority to even constitute a inquiry committee as the said functions are essential function to be discharged by the Vice Chancellor and could not have been delegated. Countering the said submission, Sri Avinash Mishra has produced before this Court a document dated 1.9.2023 under the signature of Vice Chancellor of the University whereby a three member committee has been constituted to probe in to charges leveled upon the fourth respondent with respect to the fact as to whether the suspension needs to be continued or not. He further has brought before this court another communication of the Vice Chancellor of the University dated 30.9.2023 so as to further contend that the writ petitioner had even consented to the constitution of the committee with certain modification regarding exclusion and induction of nominated members, he thus submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he has waved away his right to challenge the order once he consented to the constitution of the inquiry committee and further the charges do not warrent suspension of the fourth respondent. Sri Bal Mukund Singh, who appears for the University has supported the case of the fourth respondent and according to him the action has been taken strictly in accordance with law. This Court on a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the parties as to whether their happens to be any provision of constitution of three members committee or not to which the learned counsel for the University has made a statement that it is open to the Vice Chancellor to constitute a committee to inquire into the matter and to provide inputs and then a final decision is to be taken by the Vice Chancellor of the University. This Court further finds that their happens to be the provision under Section 35(2) (4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 empowering the Vice Chancellor to pass stay order thus this Court is not going into the said aspect of the matter. At this juncture, Sri Rohit Pandey learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that let a final decision with regard to the suspension/fourth respondent be taken by the Vice Chancellor of the University strictly in accordance with law as per the requirements of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 without being any influenced by the complaint preferred by Mahavidyalaya Prachar Parishad. He further submits that while taking a final decision the writ petitioner be heard in that regard as obviously it had a say in the matter. To such a submission, Sri Bal Mukund Singh, who appears for the University and Sri Avinash Mishra, who appears for the fourth respondent have no objection and they gracefully accept the same. According to them the parties they are giving their consent that the matter be decided by the Vice Chancellor of the University concerned. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Vice Chancellor of the Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur third respondent on 18.10.2023 along with his version/representation/claim. The Vice Chancellor shall fix a date in the month of October, 2023 on that date after exchange of versions hearing be done and order be passed with most expedition not latter than 9th November, 2023 strictly in accordance with law Needless to point out that since the writ petition has been decided of on the basis of the concession made by the parties thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 11.10.2023 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad