Prof. Dr. T. Unnikrishnan Vs The Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalay, Khairagarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI

¶3

2024:CGHC:35001

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

W.P.(S) No. 3955 of 2015

¶7

Prof. Dr. T. Unnikrishnan, Aged-61 years, S/o Shri K.K. Nair Professor & H.O.D. Karnatak Music and Dean, Music Faculty. At – Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, R/o Teachers Colony, University Campus, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalay, Khairagarh Through – its Registrar, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

Prof. Mandwi Singh, The Vice Chancellor, Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶12

The Registrar, Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate

¶15

For Respondents : Mr. Khulesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

09.09.2024

¶18

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶19

“ 10.a. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents for quashing the impugned memo of charge sheet dt. 12/10/2015 Annexure – P/1.

¶20

10.b. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the consequential benefits of services etc.

¶21

2

¶22

10.c. May kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper.

¶23

10.d. Cost of petition may be allowed.”

¶24

2. Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that at the relevant time in the year 2015, the petitioner was posted on the post of Professor and HOD in Vocal Karnatak Music faculty under the respondents. She would further argue that the Article of Charge was issued on 12.10.2015 by the Registrar of the University making certain allegations. She would refer to the Statute No. 8(4) framed under the Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act, 1956’) and would submit that Kula Sachiva/Registrar has no authority of law to issue Article of Charge to the Professor or Professor-cum-HOD under the authority of the Vice-Chancellor. She would also argue that the power is vested with the Executive Council of the University and thus, the Article of Charge was not issued by the competent authority and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶25

3. On the other hand, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would submit that the Registrar has been conferred with the power by Statute No. 8 of the Act, 1956. He would further submit that the Registrar is the custodian of the records, he may issue all notices, convene meetings, conduct all correspondence relating to the University and may perform all other duties as may from time to time be prescribed to him by the Karyakarini Samiti. He would further submit that the Article of Charge issued by the Registrar is strictly in accordance with the provisions of

¶26

3

¶27

the Statute. Mr. Khulesh Sahu would further argue that the petitioner was a contractual employee and according to Statute No. 21(11) of the Act, 1956, the issue can be raised before the Arbitrator, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court directly, therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

¶28

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.

¶29

5. Statute No. 08 of the Act, 1956 is reproduced herein below for reference:-

¶30

“S T A T U T E NO.8

¶31

KULA SACHIVA

¶32

(1) The Kula Sachiva shall be the ex-officio Secretary to the Karyakarini Samiti, Shiksha Samiti, the Vitta Samiti and the Vidyanganikaya, but shall not be deemed to be member of any of these authorities,

¶33

(2) He shall draw pay as may be determined at the time of his appointment and from time to time.

¶34

(3) It shall be the duty of the Kula Sachiva:-

¶35

(a) to be the custodian of records, common seal and such other properties as the Karyakarini Samiti shall commit to his charge,

¶36

(b) to issue all notices convening meetings of the Vishwavidyalaya Sabha, the Karyakarini Samiti, the Vidyanganikaya, the Departments of Studies, the Boards of Examiners and of any committee appointed by the authority of the Vishwavidyalaya,

¶37

(c) to keep the minutes of all the meetings of the Vishwavidyalaya Sabha, the Karyakarini Samiti, the Shiksha Samiti, the Vitta Samiti, the Vishwavidyalaya and any committee appointed by the authority of the Vishwavidyalaya;

¶38

(d) to conduct all correspondence relating to the Vishwavidyalaya;

¶39

(e) to arrange for the conduct and superintendence of examinations of the Vishwavidyalaya;

¶40

(f) to supply the Kulapati copies of the Agenda of the meetings of the authorities of the

¶41

4

¶42

Vishwavidyalaya as soon as they are issued and the minutes of the meetings of the authorities ordinarily with in a month of the holding of the meeting and such other papers and information as the Kulapati may direct him to furnish from time to time;

¶43

(g) to perform such other duties as may from time to time be prescribed to him by the Karyakarini Samiti or by the Statutes, Ordinances and the Regulations and render such assistance as may be desired by the Kulapati in the performance of official duty;

¶44

(4) The Kula Sachiva shall have power, subject to the control of the Kulapati to appoint suspend dismiss or otherwise punish the clerical and the menial Staff of the Vishwavidyalaya office. Action taken in the exercise of this power shall be reported to the Karyakarini Samiti at its next meeting.”

¶45

6. A bare reading of Statute No. 8 would show that the Registrar may perform administrative works, whereas, with regard to disciplinary authority, he has been conferred with the power to appoint, suspend, dismiss or otherwise punish the clerical and the menial Staff of the University office and such action shall be reported to the Karyakarini Samiti. The disciplinary action against the Professor and HOD can be taken by the Administrative Committee according to Section 23 of the Act, 1956 and thus, the Registrar has had no authority of law to issue an Article of Charge to the Professor and HOD. With regard to the contention raised by Mr. Khulesh Sahu citing Statute No. 21 (11) which provides for an Arbitration clause, when the University was aware of this fact, instead of issuing a show cause notice or Article of Charge, the University should have approached the Arbitrator, therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Khulesh Sahu is misplaced.

¶46

7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the Article of Charge issued by the Registrar against the petitioner dated 12.10.2015 is

¶47

5

¶48

hereby quashed. The University would be at liberty to issue the Article of Charge strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised.

¶49

8. With regard to consequential benefits and arrears of salary, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the University strictly in accordance with law and the University is directed to consider and decide the representation in an objective manner by speaking order preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

9. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is disposed of . No cost(s).

¶51

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶52

vatti

Prof. Dr. T. Unnikrishnan v. The Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalay, Khairagarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof. Dr. T. Unnikrishnan v. The Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalay, Khairagarh

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

Similar cases

Shree Balaji Iron and Steel Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax Circle - 1(1)

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Saloni Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kshirsagar Sidar

Dwarika Prasad Gupta Vs Gangotri Lehmore

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Gautam Haldhar