Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow Thru. Its President/Secy./ Manager, Dr. R.R. Lyall and Others Vs University of Lucknow, Lucknow Thru. Registrar and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47133

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4793 of 2024 Petitioner :- Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow Thru. Its President/Secy./ Manager, Dr. R.R. Lyall And Others Respondent :- University Of Lucknow, Lucknow Thru. Registrar And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zainuddin Mohammad Siddiqui,Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Kumar Singh,Anurag Kumar Singh,Mahendra Pratap Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

¶5

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, University of Lucknow whereby earlier order dated 21.02.2024 placing opposite party no.3 under suspension has been quashed.

¶6

Learned counsel for opposite parties at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of fact that petitioner has an alternative and equally efficacious remedy of filing Reference under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 973).

¶7

In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that where the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor is against the Statutes and without adhering properly to principles of natural justice, the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and the petition would even otherwise be maintainable.

¶8

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the primary ground taken by petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without adhering to and upon misapplication of the First Statutes of University of Lucknow.

¶9

It is also submitted that the jurisdiction of the Committee of Management has been wrongly interpreted. In such circumstances and particularly in view of allegations regarding non-adherence to proper principles of natural justice, the provisions of Section 68 of the Act 1973 would not be an absolute bar in maintainability of this petition, which is accordingly held to be maintainable. The preliminary objection as such is rejected.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order has quashed the suspension order dated 21.02.20224 primarily on three grounds that (i) the said order has been passed without any complaint against the Teacher, (ii) there is no order suspending the Teacher passed by the Committee of Management; and (iii) that documents and material relating to suspension of Teacher concerned were never placed before the Committee of Management.

¶11

It has been submitted that there is no provision either under the First Statutes of the University or even any other Circular or Order whereby a Teacher in the College concerned cannot be placed under suspension on a suo motu notice being taken by the Committee of Management. It is therefore submitted that the first reasoning indicated in the impugned order is patently incorrect.

¶12

Learned counsel has also drawn attention to suspension order dated 21.02.2024 to submit that the opening lines thereof itself indicates that the suspension order is being passed on the authorization and investiture of power by the unanimous resolution of the Committee of Management dated 25.11.2023 and therefore the subsequent two grounds also fail since the resolution of Committee of Management was passed on the basis of material on record which was placed before it.

¶13

In response thereto, learned counsel for opposite parties while admitting that there is no provision in the Fist Statutes whereby suspension order can be resorted only in case of a complaint made against a Teacher, however has drawn attention to the alleged unanimous resolution of the Committee of Management dated 25.11.2023 with the submission that the order itself clearly indicates that the House had unanimously authorized the Manager to place the delinquent employee under suspension during pendency of enquiry. It is therefore, submitted that there was no objective or subjective satisfaction recorded by the Committee itself with regard to suspension of the delinquent employee nor was he placed under suspension by Committee of Management. It is further submitted that the Committee of Management itself exercises delegated powers in terms of Section 50 of the Act of 1973 and as such delegated power cannot be re-delegated.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the delinquent employee had been suspended by means of order dated 21.02.2024 specifically indicating that the same was being resorted to in terms of the unanimous resolution of the Committee of Management dated 25.11.2023. A perusal of the aforesaid resolution, excerpts of which have been brought on record as Annexure-14 to the writ petition and is admitted, clearly indicates the fact that the House had unanimously resolved to authorize the Manager to place the delinquent employee under suspension during pendency of enquiry. It is in pursuance of such authorization that the Manager issued the order dated 21.02.2024 placing the delinquent employee under suspension.

¶15

It is admitted between the parties that it is only the

¶16

Committee of Management which is authorized to place a Teacher under suspension during pendency of enquiry or the Principal in case the Committee is unavailable or in emergency in terms of Statute 17.07 of the First Statutes of the University.

¶17

In such circumstances, clearly there is no resolution of the Committee of Management specifically placing the delinquent employee under suspension, since by means of resolution dated 25.11.2023, only authorization has been delegated upon the Manager to place the delinquent employee under suspension.

¶18

In view of aforesaid, it is quite evident that there is no specific resolution of Committee of Management placing the delinquent employee under suspension and therefore no exception can be taken to ground taken in impugned order with regard thereto.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed .

¶20

However, since statutory power has been conferred upon the Committee of Management with regard to suspension of delinquent employees during pendency of enquiry proceedings, the aforesaid option is always available with the Committee of Management to pass fresh orders thereto but only after examining the material and allegations levelled against the delinquent employee and after application of mind and reaching a prima facie subjective satisfaction regarding necessity with regard to same.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.7.2024 kvg/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow Thru. Its President/Secy./ Manager, Dr. R.R. Lyall and Others v. University of Lucknow, Lucknow Thru. Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucknow Christian College, Lucknow Thru. Its President/Secy./ Manager, Dr. R.R. Lyall and Others v. University of Lucknow, Lucknow Thru. Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Roop Singh Vs State of U.P.through Secy.

Mast Ram Vs State of U.P.through Principal Secy.Madhyamik Shiksha

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Radha Raman Mishra Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. ( Secondary Education ) Lko. and 6 Others

Mamta Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat, Lucknow and Others