Allowed

C/M Dharam Samaj Degree College and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2022WRIA/21954/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Vice Chancellor's order disapproving a suspension and a termination of a college employee. The court set aside the disapproval of the suspension for failing to consider only the seriousness of charges and disallowed the termination disapproval due to lack of jurisdiction. The termination was remitted for a fresh inquiry as evidence was not properly led.

What the court decided

AI extract

C/M Dharam Samaj Degree College and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21954 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Dharam Samaj Degree College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Man Mohan Singh,Shailesh Kumar Shukla,Shashi Prakash Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla alongwith Sri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent; Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the University and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh State University, Aligarh. By that order, the Vice Chancellor has disapproved the termination of respondent no. 5 set up by the petitioner-Committee of Management dated 16.11.2022. Also, by the same order he has disapproved the suspension of the said respondent dated 10.10.2022.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, earlier, the petitionerCommittee of Management had suspended respondent no.5 on 10.10.2022. On the same date, the Vice Chancellor disapproved the suspension order, vide his order dated 10.10.2022. That order became subject matter of challenge in earlier writ petition filed by the Committee of Management being Writ - A No. 17492 of 2022. It was allowed with the following observations, vide order dated31.10.2022 :

¶8

"3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Committee of Management before the impugned order came

¶9

to be passed. Even then, there is no consideration of the merits of the suspension order or the gravity of the charge that the management may have imposed on the private respondent. Merely because there may be certain complaints made against the Committee of Management, which may be inquired into, may not justify the impugned order.

¶10

4. Whichever way the matter may be looked into, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. However, at this stage, it is set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.

¶11

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor is set aside. However, it is left open to the respondent Vice Chancellor to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law, after due notice to all parties."

¶12

While the matter was thus remanded, the matter was fixed for hearing on 09.11.2022. The next date of hearing fixed in the matter was 16.11.2022.

¶13

Between such dates, the petitioner - Committee of Management claims to have conducted the domestic enquiry against respondent no.5 on three dates between 07.11.2022, 12.11.2022 and 14.11.2022. Thereafter, the enquiry report is claimed to have been prepared and served on the respondent no. 5, his reply called through e-mail. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 16.11.2022, the service of respondent no. 5 were terminated.

¶14

In such facts, the matter was heard by the Vice Chancellor on 16.11.2022 itself. Taking cognizance of the resolution dated 16.11.2022 set up by the petitioner - Committee of Management, the Vice Chancellor has proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶15

Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are, the suspension order has been set aside by the Vice Chancellor for reason of delay in reporting the matter beyond the period of one week contemplated in the statute of 16.07(a). Here, it has been submitted, the said provision is directory and not

¶16

mandatory. Second, the suspension order has been disapproved on considering the merits of the charges. Here, it has been submitted, it never became open to the Vice Chancellor to either examine merits of the charges or record finding as to the same.

¶17

For the purposes of approval of suspension order, only seriousness of the charges was to be considered on the anvil whether such charges would require suspension from service pending inquiry. That exercise has not yet been done. As to the termination, it has been submitted, neither that matter was before the Vice Chancellor nor any objection had been received by him nor any date of hearing was fixed. Merely because the Vice Chancellor was apprised about the termination order, he has proceeded to reject the same.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent would submit, the petitioner is being victimized for having raised his voice against the Committee of Management. Earlier, he was suspended for no reason and now without conduct of any enquiry and without issuance of second showcause-notice, his services have been terminated. Moreover, it has been submitted, the petitioner was never served with the notice in the inquiry proceedings.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it may be true, the termination order may not have been passed in a hurried manner and in absence of proper proceedings, the said issue has to be examined separately.

¶20

In the present case, upon the first order passed by this Court, the Vice Chancellor was required to examine the issue of suspension. In doing that, it may have been open to him to consider the subsequent development of termination. However, it never became open to him to disapprove the termination order

¶21

in such proceedings.

¶22

The course adopted by the Vice Chancellor is strange and unknown to law. High functionaries entrusted with vital decision making that has effect on civil rights of citizens and their organisations are not expected to act in hurry in violation of settled principles and procedure established by law. Once the court had required the Vice Chancellor to give both parties opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order, the matter of sustainability of the suspension should have been tested within the confines of that power. It would have been better appreciated if the Vice Chancellor remained cognizant of the same while passing the impugned order.

¶23

Insofar as the suspension order is concerned, the Vice Chancellor has passed the order on two factors of delay in reporting the suspension order beyond one week and merits of the charges. Insofar as the alleged delay in reporting the suspension order, it is difficult to accept the reasoning offered by the Vice Chancellor as its remains an undisputed fact that the suspension order is dated 10.10.2022 whereas the same was revoked by the Vice Chancellor on the same day. Once the Vice Chancellor had revoked the suspension order, it never remained open to him to reason that the matter had been reported to him with delay.

¶24

Whatever formal defect may have remained in completion of file records, if any, it may have been cured after requiring the Committee of Management to make appropriate submissions. However, once the authority had disapproved the suspension order on 10.10.2022 itself, he could not have adopted a contradicted reasoning (as has been in the impugned order) to state that the suspension order had not been reported to him. The Court leaves the matter at this with the hope that the Vice Chancellor would make the necessary corrections in exercise of

¶25

his power in this and cases, in future.

¶26

As to the second reason offered, the same can also not be accepted for two reasons. One, it never became open to the Vice Chancellor to consider the merits of the charges while considering the matter of approval or disapproval to the suspension order. He had to confine himself to the seriousness of the charge levelled and examine it in the context of desirability to keep respondent no. 5 suspended pending inquiry into such charge. Second, neither there was any stage to record any finding to exonerate the respondent no.5 while considering the matter of suspension nor any reason based on any material is contained in the impugned order to that effect.

¶27

Accordingly, the impugned order insofar as it provides for disapproval of suspension is again laconic and fundamentally defective such that it may never been sustained. It is accordingly set aside.

¶28

Insofar as the termination order is concerned, suffice to note, the matter had not even been referred to the Vice Chancellor as may have allowed any opportunity to either approve or disapprove the same. The fact of Committee of Management informed the Vice Chancellor about that order on the date when the said order is claimed to have been made, may have only allowed the Vice Chancellor to allow the parties to raise proper objections and reply thereto.

¶29

The hurry with which quasi-judicial decision has been reached is worrisome to the Court. Not only conclusions drawn by the authorities must be correct but due procedure of law must be followed and ensured such that all parties to the dispute participate in such proceedings on equal terms with hope that the decision reached is steeped in reason arising on the basis of consideration of respective pleas set up by them.

¶30

However, in the totality of the circumstances, it is found, the Committee of Management has also acted with hurry in terminating the service of the respondent no. 5. At present, it does not appear that proper and fair enquiry has been conducted. Only three dates had been fixed in the inquiry proceedings and no evidence appears to have been led. These facts are clear from the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 16.11.2022 itself. However, there is no recital of any evidence led against the petitioner to prove any charge.

¶31

In view of the above, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Committee of Management states, it would withdraw the resolution dated 16.11.2022. Accordingly, it is further provided, the petitioner Committee of Management would now reinitiate the domestic inquiry proceedings from the stage of issuance of chargesheet.

¶32

Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Vice Chancellor to pass a fresh order as to approval/disapproval of the suspension order dated 10.10.2022, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of .

¶34

Order Date :- 23.12.2022 Abhilash

¶35

Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

C/M Dharam Samaj Degree College and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C/M Dharam Samaj Degree College and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Liyakat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gayatri Devi Vs the State of U P and 5 Others

Lal Bahadur Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Soraon and 3 Others

Ram Uday Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others