Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Edu. Deptt. Higher Edu. New Delhi and 4 Others

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 281 of 2025

Petitioner :- Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Edu. Deptt. Higher Edu. New Delhi And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Trivedi,Prashant Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashwani Kumar Singh,Dr. V.K. Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Short counter affidavit/preliminary objections filed by opposite parties no.2 to 4 is taken on record alongwith supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 4. Notice as of now to opposite party no. 5 stands dispensed with and may be issued subsequently, if required.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner is granted liberty to correct the numbering of prayers. Consequential amendment in the memorandum of petition shall be incorporated during the course of day.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging office order dated 19.12.2024 whereby petitioner being Registrar of the University has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry. Also under challenge is the letter dated 30.12.2024 pertaining to circulation of draft minutes of 88^th adjourned (emergent) meeting of the Board of Management for their approval by circulation.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier as well petitioner had been suspended from service vide order dated 18.11.2024 which was challenged in Writ-A No. 11340 of 2024 in which the same was stayed by means of interim order dated 28.11.2024. The said interim order was challenged in Special Appeal No. 284 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2024 whereby liberty was granted to University to proceed against petitioner for alleged lapses/irregularities, if any, by passing fresh orders as per law. The orders impugned in the petition were also set at naught in terms of the submissions and it was directed that petitioner would be entitled to discharge functions and work in the capacity in which he was working prior to passing of the impugned orders challenged before the writ Court.

¶11

It is submitted that purportedly in pursuance of aforesaid directions, the impugned order has been passed by the Vicechancellor allegedly exercising power under Section 12(3) of the Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Univerity Act, 1994.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Section 12(3) of the Act of 1994, the Vice-chancellor is vested with power to take immediate action as necessary in exercise of any power conferred on authority of the University by or under the Act, which shall be reported to such authority.

¶13

He has also adverted to statute 12.2 (v) and (xvi) to submit that regulation and enforcement of discipline amongst employees in accordance with statutes and ordinances vests only with the Board of Management with entitlement to delegate any of its powers to the Vice-chancellor or other authorities being indicated in Clause (xvi) thereof.

¶14

He has also adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble

¶15

Supreme Court in the case of Marathwada University versus Sheshrao Balwant Rao Chavan reported in (1989) 3 SCC 132 to submit that a similar provision was under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that such emergent powers pertain only to administrative functioning and would not include disciplinary action required to be taken against officers or employees of organization which in both cases is the University concerned.

¶16

It is further submitted that there is no delegation of power exercisable by the Board of Management pertaining to discipline of employees in terms of statute 12.1 (xvi) of the statutes of the University and therefore the impugned order pertaining to suspension of petitioner is without jurisdiction.

¶17

With regard to challenge raised to the letter dated 30.12.2024, it has been submitted that it is quite apparent that by means of said letter, the draft minutes of 88^th (emergent) meeting of the Board of Management has been circulated for approval by the Members of Board of Management. It is submitted that the aforesaid letter itself makes it evident that the 88^th (emergent) meeting of the Board of Management was in fact adjourned due to lack of quorum and therefore there was no occasion for any draft minutes of an adjourned meeting requiring approval by circulation. It is submitted that aforesaid clearly indicates the mala-fide on the part of opposite parties.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of University has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act of 1994 are not pari materia with Section 11(4) of the Marathwada University Act, 1974. It is submitted that under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1994, inherent safeguards have

¶19

already been provided with regard to exercise of power under Section 12(3) of the Act whereby in case the authority concerned is of the opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, the matter is required to be referred to the visitor whose decision would be final. He has also adverted to second proviso thereto to submit that even in case any person in the service of the University is aggrieved by action taken by the Vice-chancellor, he shall a right to appeal against such action to the Board of Management.

¶20

It has also been submitted that in earlier writ petition, the order of suspension of petitioner impugned therein was found fault with on the ground that no prima facie satisfaction or opinion was indicated for exercise of emergent power by the Vice-chancellor as required under Section 12(3) of the Act whereas in the present case, such an emergency situation has clearly been indicated in impugned order itself to the effect that after resuming charge on the post of Registrar and during contemplation of inquiry proceedings against him, he has issued a letter dated 13.12.2024 requiring all relevant documents being submitted to him. It is submitted that since serious allegation with regard to financial misconduct has been attributed to petitioner, such a situation warranted exercise of emergency power under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1994 particularly since meetings of the Board of Management could not be convened on various occasions due to lack of quorum.

¶21

With regard to challenge raised to the letter dated 12.12.2024, it is submitted that by means of said letter, only the agenda of the minutes of 88^th emergent meeting of the Board of Management was circulated due to earlier adjournment and the aforesaid agenda has thereafter been approved by the Board of Management through circulation but has not been challenged by

¶22

petitioner.

¶23

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the aspect of applicability of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marathwada University (supra) in the present facts and circumstances of the case and upon comparison of Section 12(3) of the Act of 1994 with Section 11 (4) of the Marathwara University Act, 1994 as indicated in paragraph-10 of the judgment, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that aforesaid two provisions are quite similar though may not be in pari materia. Both the provisions pertain to emergency powers exercisable by the Vice-chancellor which requires immediate action to be taken and also for reporting such an action taken to the authority which in fact would exercise such power. The aspect has thereafter been adjudicated upon in the aforesaid judgment in paragraph-20 thereof in which it has been held that the express power conferred upon Vice-chancellor pertains to regulating administrative work and cannot be deemed to include power to take disciplinary action against officers. It has also been held that the power to regulate work and conduct of officers cannot include the power to take disciplinary action for their removal.

¶24

In the considered opinion of this Court, on a prima facie examination of dispute, the aforesaid judgment appears to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly since the order of suspension indicates that major penalty may be imposed upon petitioner which would indicate power to remove petitioner from his post.

¶25

So far as the impugned letter dated 30.12.2024 is concerned, the same indicates that the draft meeting of 88^th adjourned

¶26

(emergent) meeting of the Board of Management is being circulated to the Members of Board of Management for their approval. It is thus evident that the 88^th emergent meeting of the Board of management scheduled to be held on 30.11.2024 and twice on 15.12.2024 was adjourned. The letter dated 30.12.2024 does not indicate that the agenda for the meeting was being circulated and on the contrary it states that the draft minutes of the adjourned meeting were being circulated. This Court cannot presume an aspect which is not indicated in the letter to presume that it was in fact the agenda and not the minutes of meeting which was circulated. On the contrary the draft minutes of the meeting appended to letter dated 30.12.2024 clearly indicates resolutions being made by the Board of Management in the 88^th emergent meeting although the said meeting is stated to have been adjourned. This Court is unable to comprehend any resolution being passed by the Board of Management in a meeting which was never held.

¶27

So far as the aspect of preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for parties pertaining to maintainability of this petition on the ground of provisos to Section 12(3) of the Act of 1994 is concerned, it is evident from the record itself that the Board of Management of the University has been unable to hold any recent meeting since its quorum was incomplete. In such circumstances neither the first proviso nor even the second proviso to Section 12(3) of the Act of 1994 would indicate any alternative or even efficacious remedy available by petitioner.

¶28

In the preliminary objections, it has also been stated that writ petition has been filed placing reliance on forged regulations pertaining to the institution since the resolution annexed as annexure no.15 to the petition is an unapproved copy of the regulations with the approved regulations being

¶29

brought on record.

¶30

It is submitted that there is also concealment since the order dated 13.12.2024 whereby petitioner has summoned various documents pertaining to charges levelled against him has not been brought on record as well as the fact that opposite party no.5 has been impleaded without any allegation of malice but made against the then Vice-chancellor as indicated in paragraphs no.14 and 15 who has not been impleaded impleaded as a party. It is also submitted that the prayers no. I and J as made are not maintainable in service dispute.

¶31

With regard to the forgery of document, the supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of petitioner bringing on record the approved regulation of the University as admitted by learned counsel for the University also. The aspects of certain prayers being vague and of wrongful impleadment of parties, in the considered opinion of this Court would be curable defects and would not require a petition to be dismissed in limine on that ground.

¶32

Even otherwise once an order is impugned on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, this Court has ample powers to entertain a petition as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 .

¶33

Considering aforesaid discussion and prima facie satisfaction with submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 as well as operation of the letter dated 30.12.2024 are hereby stayed until further order of this Court.

¶34

Opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file their

¶35

counter affidavit.

¶36

List this case on 24.02.2025.

¶37

Order Date :- 16.1.2025

¶38

Satish

¶39

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh v. Union of India Thru. Ministry of Edu. Deptt. Higher Edu. New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh v. Union of India Thru. Ministry of Edu. Deptt. Higher Edu. New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashfaq and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Anoop Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajai Pratap Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Vivek Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Chandni Shukla Alias Chandni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shanu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.