Allowed

C/M Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur, Saharanpur v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2019WRIA/18429/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order by the University Registrar that quashed a college's suspension of a professor. The Registrar acted without giving the college proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The Court directed a proper hearing including the professor.

What did the court decide?

The order of 23.10.2019 setting aside suspension set aside. Petitioner directed to appear before University on 6.12.2019 with all materials. University directed to hear both parties by 13.12.2019.

C/M Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur, Saharanpur Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18429 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur, Saharanpur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bilas Yadav,Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate),Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishan Pahal,Santosh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Krishan Pahal, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 and Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 namely Registrar, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.

¶7

It appears from perusal of the facts as narrated in the writ petition are that the respondent no.4, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Sharma was Associate Professor in Agricultural Chemistry Department, in the college in question namely Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur. Due to misconduct by the respondent no.4 a show cause notice was issued to him by the petitioner-Management on 23.1.2019. Subsequently an order of suspension was passed by the petitioner's Committee of Management against the respondent no.4 on 19.9.2019. A three members Enquiry Committee was also constituted by the petitioner's Committee of Management in order to conduct enquiry. A charge-sheet dated 14.10.2019 was also issued by the Committee of Management to the respondent no.4.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet has already been submitted by him. In the meanwhile, a representation was made by the respondent no.4 before the respondent no.3/Registrar, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut on 23.9.2019 with the prayer to quash the order of suspension dated 19.9.2019.

¶9

It appears from the record that on the said representation dated 23.9.2019 letters were written by the University to the petitioner to appear before the University to make their

¶10

submission but inspite of the various dates Manager of the institution or any other representative of the institution were never chosen to appear before the respondent-University.

¶11

In the circumstances, the order dated 23.10.2019 was passed by the respondent no.3 setting aside the order of suspension with immediate effect. The order dated 23.10.2019 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶12

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the fact that 15 days' time was sought by the petitioner from the respondent no.3 vide its letter dated 11.10.2019 but wholly illegally 16.10.2019 was fixed for appearance. It is further argued that the applications were made to adjourn the hearing of the case due to illness of Secretary and President of the College in question but without considering the aforesaid request made by the petitioner, the matter was heard and a decision was taken on 23.10.2019. It is further argued that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner and the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 is an ex-parte order and cannot be sustained, which was passed without application of mind and without adverting true facts.

¶13

It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that charges levelled in the suspension order are not so serious and on the basis of the same a major punishment could not be awarded.

¶14

I have perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.3. It appears from perusal of the order that order of suspension was revoked by the respondent no.3 on the ground that neither show cause notice was issued nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Apart from the same another ground was taken by the respondent no.3 in the order impugned that no reasons whatsoever has been mentioned in the order of suspension that how and in what manner the orders passed by the Management were violated. It further appears from perusal of the order that although time and again the opportunity was given by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner to appear before him but the petitioner never appear before the respondent no.3. It further appears from perusal of the record that although a charge-sheet was already issued by the petitioner to the respondent no.4 along-with al letter dated 14.10.2019 but the same was not at all upon taken into consideration by the respondent no.3 while passing the order impugned.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ

¶17

petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the respondent no.3 was without providing proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as such the order dated 23.10.2019 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

¶19

In view of the same, present writ petition is disposed of finally directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent no.3 on 6.12.2019 along-with all materials available with him and submit his reply if any, on or before 06.12.2019. The respondent no.3 is directed to hear the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 and pass appropriate orders on the same on or before 13.12.2019.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Pramod Tripathi

C/M Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur, Saharanpur v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur, Saharanpur v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhpal Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 10 Others

Smt. Sudha Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Hemlata Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gayn Chandra Yadav Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Smt. Madhuri Kendurkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nargis Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others