An aided law college challenged appellate orders setting aside a lecturer's termination. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the governing body had not complied with mandatory approval requirements. It also rejected the objection to circulation of the final appellate order under a subordinate officer's signature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
P a g e | 1
JOHN Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: TELEN 2021.12.10 KOM 16:01:21 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
Oinam Ibochouba Singh aged about 78 years old s/o (Late) O.Bira Singh, Secretary, the Governing Body, Royal Academy of Law, Oinam, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District- 795134.
.....Petitioner
-VERSUS-
.......Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner :: Mrs. Babita Th., Advocate For the Respondents :: Mrs. G. Pushpa, Advocate for the respondent No. 3, Mr. Y. Ashang, GA for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 2
Date of Hearing and Judgment & Order :: 22.11.2021.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash
the impugned order dated and 27.08.2019 passed by the Director, University & Higher Education, Manipur, which was affirmed by the Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education, in his order dated 1.2.2020.
2.1. The petitioner is the Secretary of the Governing Body of Royal Academy of Law, Oinam and the Royal Academy of Law was established as a private Law College in the year 1994. It was registered as Society under the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 and it was approved by the Bar Council of India and also got affiliation with the Manipur University Canchipur, Imphal. The affairs of the Royal Academy of Law, Oinam are purely that of a private College and was run and managed by the duly elected Governing Body of the College. There were 14 Lecturers in the Royal Academy of Law. Out of 14 Lecturers, 3 were Part-Time Lecturers. The third respondent – Kh. Beenita Devi, who was possessing B.A. LL.B. Degree was a Part-Time Lecturer and the PartTime Lecturers have no right.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 3
2.2. The third respondent and another three Lecturers were found habitually absent and the third respondent was found absent for 568 days during the year 2015-18. Over and above, 4 Lecturers, including the third respondent were found absent on 9.2.2018 and therefore, they were placed under suspension. A common departmental enquiry against 4 Lecturers was initiated and the Enquiry Officer, after holding the departmental enquiry, submitted a report on 15.9.2018 to the authority of the Royal Academy of Law with a finding that all charges, except the charge of absence by 4 Lecturers on 9.2.2018 are proved and a copy of the report was forwarded to all four requiring them to submit their reply/representations, if they wish to make. Accordingly, on 19.10.2018, the third respondent submitted a representation praying for exonerating her from all charges.
2.3. After considering the enquiry report and the reply/representation submitted by the third respondent, the Secretary, Governing Body of Royal Academy of Law passed an order dated 28.11.2018 terminating the services of the third respondent with effect from 28.11.2018. On 17.12.2018, the third respondent submitted another representation and after examination, the Governing Body in its meeting held on 2.1.2019 affirmed the termination, thereby rejected the request of the third respondent vide order dated 14.1.2019. Challenging the termination order dated 28.11.2018, the third respondent filed W.P.(C) No.57 of 2019 and by the order dated 30.1.2019, this Court disposed of
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 4
the writ petition by directing the third respondent to approach the Director of Higher & Technical Education within 7 days and in the event of the representation being submitted by the third respondent, the Director was directed to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
2.4. The third respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who is the first appellate authority with a request to revoke the termination order dated 28.11.2018. By the order dated 6.3.2019, the Director of University and Higher Education set aside the termination order dated 28.11.2018 with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.276 of 2019 and by the order dated 2.8.2019, this Court set aside the order dated 6.3.2019 and granted liberty to the respondents therein to proceed with the direction given in W.P.(C) No.57 of 2019 dated 30.1.2019.
2.5. Thereafter, the Director of University & Higher Education issued an order dated 27.8.2019 revoking the termination order 28.11.2018 on the ground that the same was issued against the provisions of Section II, 4(a) and II, 4(b) of the Manipur Education Code, 1982. According to the petitioner, the order dated 27.8.2019 issued by the Director of University & Higher Education setting aside the termination order dated 28.11.2018 suffers from infirmities and thus the same is illegal.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 5
2.6. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner preferred an appeal/representation dated 2.9.2019 before the Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education who is the final appellate authority as provided in Chapter-XI, Section-I, Rule 11 of Manipur Education Code, 1982 for quashing of the order dated 27.8.2019. On 13.11.2019, the Commissioner of Higher & Technical Education issued an order instructing the Director of Education to reconsider/review the order dated 27.8.2019. By the same order, the Director of University & Higher Education and the Governing Body of Royal Academy of Law were directed to submit related documents within four weeks.
2.7. In the meanwhile, the third respondent filed W.P.(C) No.998 of 2019 for quashing the order dated 13.11.2019 and by the order dated 16.12.2019, this Court disposed of the writ petition, whereby setting aside the last paragraph of the order dated 13.11.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 1.12.2020 came to be passed by the Special Secretary of Higher & Technical Education upholding the order dated 27.8.2019. Challenging both the orders dated 1.12.2020 and 27.8.2019 respectively, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 6
examination of the termination order passed by the Governing Body of Royal Academy of Law, had passed an order 27.8.2019 setting aside the termination order dated 28.11.2018 on the ground that the College authority had failed to comply with the provisions provided under the Manipur Education Code, 1982 while issuing the termination order.
3.1. It is stated that against the order dated 27.8.2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Higher & Technical Education, which is the final appellate authority. The final appellate authority directed the office of the Directorate of University & Higher Education and the petitioner to submit their respective statements of defence. Accordingly, statements of defence were submitted before the appellate authority. After having minute examination of the statements of defence submitted by the respective parties and having perused the directions given by this Court and also the other relevant documents, the Commissioner upheld the decision rendered by the first appellate authority on 1.2.2020. According to the respondents 1 and 2, there is no infirmity and illegality in the orders dated 27.8.2019 and 1.2.2020 respectively.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 7
the ground of their absence on 9.2.2018. However, it is to be mentioned that on 9.2.2018, the third respondent and other Lecturers did not attend the College due to their respective personal problems, which was duly explained. It is stated that the Governing Body of Royal Academy of Law has no power to conduct any departmental enquiry against any Lecturer before fulfilling the provisions of Chapter XI, Section I 12(c) of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 and therefore, as per the above provision, the departmental enquiry itself is vitiated.
4.1. It is also stated that the entire proceedings of the departmental enquiry and its subsequent issuance of the termination order dated 28.11.2018 has no force of law and, as such, there is no question of framing charges and take suitable decision/proving it. The termination order dated 28.11.2018 is patently illegal for the reason that there is no provision for terminating an employee by the Governing Body.
4.2. According to the third respondent, there is no infirmity in the order/letter dated 6.3.2019 issued by the Director of University & Higher Education as the same was issued as per the powers conferred by the Manipur Education Code. Further, there is no infirmity in the order dated 27.8.2019 issued by the Director and the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and, as such, the writ petition suffers from lapses on the ground of concealing of material facts. The appellate authority had made an enquiry to weigh the evidence and finally came to its conclusion and, as such, there was no lapse on the part of the
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 8
appellate authority. In fact, the appellate authority while exercising his appellate jurisdiction had perused all the relevant files, which can be revealed from the order dated 13.11.2019.
4.3. It is also stated that the Manipur Education Code, 1982 does not provide any provision for taking up disciplinary proceedings on its own by the Governing Body of Government Aided College and without the instructions for doing the same from the Director, Higher and Technical Education, the Governing Body of Royal Academy of Law has no power for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Governing Body against the third respondent is void ab initio . In fact, the third respondent has been victimized and made a scapegoat by the authority of Royal Academy of Law with an aim to tarnish the image and career of the third respondent by way of issuing the termination order.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 9
Director of Education are regulated by the Rules provided in Chapter XI, Section I to Section IV of the Manipur Education Code, 1982. Being a Degree College, the Royal Academy of Law is affiliated to Manipur University and the appointment of teaching staff is governed by the University Grants Commission.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 10
was held for Th.Nishikanta Singh. The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed and after holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.9.2018.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 11
Director of University and Higher Education entertained an undated representation of the third respondent as an appeal application and the same was disposed of on 6.3.2019, thereby the termination order dated 28.11.2018 was set aside. Accordingly, on 27.8.2019, the Director revoked the termination order dated 28.11.2018. Challenging the order dated 27.8.2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Higher and Technical Education for quashing the same.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 12
illegal order. Stating that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function and the appellate authority also exercise quasi-judicial powers and they cannot delegate their powers to their subordinates, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 1.2.2020 issued under the signature of Special Secretary is void and illegal.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 13
authority of Royal Academy of Law is not the competent to issue the termination order dated 28.11.2018. However, being aggrieved by the termination order dated 28.11.2018, the third respondent filed W.P.(C) No.57 of 2019 and this Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the third respondent to approach the Director, University and Higher Education for preferring an appeal as per Manipur Education Code, 1982.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 14
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 15
2015 to 2018. Accordingly, they were placed under suspension, but on the intervention of the Court order, the suspension orders were set aside. According to the petitioner, the authority of Royal Academy of Law, Oinam initiated disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent and three others and charges were also framed. The departmental enquiry was held against them and the charges were found proved. After accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the services of the third respondent and two others have been terminated on 28.11.2018 and the other one also had given punitive action. The third respondent submitted a representation dated 17.12.2018 to the Secretary, Government Body of Royal Academy of Law seeking for cancellation of the termination and the same was discussed and rejected by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 2.1.2019. Challenging the termination order, the third respondent filed W.P.(C) No.57 of 2019 before this Court. On 30.1.2019 while disposing of the writ petition, this Court passed the following order:
“4. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall approach the Director of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Manipur within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of the representation being submitted by the petitioner, the Director, Higher & Technical Education, Government of Manipur shall dispose of
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 16
the same within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and issue a speaking order in respect thereof. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Director of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Manipur, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of her grievance in accordance with law.”
“Now, therefore, after examining the case of applicant/petitioner in accordance with the rules laid down under the Manipur Government Aided College Conduct and Disciplinary Rules, 2015, the termination
order No.RAL/ONM/D1-18/2017 dated 28th November, 2018 issued by the Secretary, Governing Body, Royal Academy of Law, Oinam in respect of
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 17
Smt. Kh. Beenita Devi is set aside with immediate effect.”
“4. In that view of the matter, as the Letter dated 06.03.2019 written by the Director of University & Higher Education, Government of Manipur has been issued on a non-existing rule, the same is set aside
and quashed. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the direction passed by this Court in the Order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.57 of 2019. If the respondents contemplate to take steps in terms of the Order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.57 of 2019, the same should be done at the earliest but not later than 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order of this Court.
With the above observations and directions, writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 18
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 19
approached the Court with unclean hands, apart from the ground of lapses.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 20
“4(a) The following penalties may for good and sufficient reason be imposed upon any employee by the authority which appoints him/her.
i. Censure.
ii. With holding of increments.
iii. Reduction in rank.
iv. Recovery from pay.
v. Removal from service, which does not disqualify for future employment.
(b) one of these penalties shall be imposed on an employee/until he/she has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him/her, and without approval of the Director of Education provided that this clause shall not apply -
i. Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which had led to his/her conviction on a criminal charge.
ii. Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove an employee or to reduce him/her in rank is satisfied that for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person opportunity of showing cause etc.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 21
iii. When the appointing authority is satisfied that in the interest of the institution of the State, it is not expedient to give the person such an opportunity.
Interpretation: - If any question arises relating to the interpretation of these rules it shall be referred to the Government whose decision thereon shall be final.”
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 22
held:
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasijudicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 23
the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.”
“7. Opportunity to a party interested in the dispute to present his case on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials before the Tribunal after disclosing the materials to the party against whom it is intended to use them, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon a finding of the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are attributes of even a quasi-judicial determination. It must appear not merely that the authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before him; it must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that end he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 24
only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just.”
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 25
made by learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. As per the Rules of business of the State Government only the order dated 1.2.2020 was issued and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the order dated 1.2.2020 was issued by the subordinate officer and the same was an illegal order.
“Now, therefore, after careful and minute examination of
all the records and documents. The order No.3/3-328/16EDC(32) dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Director (University & Higher Education), Manipur which revoked and set aside the termination order dated 28.11.2018 in respect of Smt. Khumbongmayum Beenita Devi, Lecturer serving in the Royal Academy of Law, Oinam (Aided) need not to be interfered. Hence, the appeal preferred by the Secretary, Governing Body, Roayal Academy of Law,
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 26
Oinam against the order No.3/3-328/16-EDC(32) dated 27.8.2019 passed by the Director of University and Higher Education, Manipur is hereby rejected and disposed of accordingly.”
“And Whereas, Section II, 4(b) of Manipur Education Code, 1982 provides that none of the penalties listed in 4(a) of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 shall be imposed without the approval of the Director of Education, which may be imposed upon any employee by the authority which appoints him/her.”
“ … after due examination of the report of the Inquiring Authority dated 15.09.2018 and the representation of Kh.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 27
Beenita Devi, Lecturer, Royal Academy of Law, Oinam, Bishnupur district, Manipur dated 19.10.2018 together have taken that the said Kh. Beenita Devi have nothing to submit in defence and thus decided to remove Kh. Beenita Devi, Lecturer from service. Accordingly, Kh. Beenita Devi, Lecturer, Royal Academy of Law, Oinam, Bishnupur District, Manipur is hereby terminated from service with immediate effect in the interest of the institution.”
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 28
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 29
without obtaining the approval of the Director of Education. However, the authority of the College is competent to issue an order for removal from service which do not disqualify for future employment, but not without the approval of the Director concerned. In such circumstances, the first appellate authority interfered with the termination order dated 28.11.2018. That apart, having found illegalities and irregularities in the proceedings taken up by the Governing Body of the College, the first appellate authority came to the conclusion that the termination order dated 28.11.2018 is void ab initio and suffers from legal lapses and accordingly, interfered by way of issuing the order dated 27.8.2019. Challenging the order dated 27.8.2019 when the petitioner preferred an appeal, the final appellate authority passed an order on 1.2.2020 affirming the order dated 27.8.2019 on the ground that the Governing Body of Royal Academy of Law had violated the provisions provided under Section-II, Rules 4(a) & (b) of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, which is mandatory in nature before imposing major penalty against the third respondent.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 30
contemplated against any employee without the instruction from the Director, University and Higher Education.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 31
same order dated 28.11.2018, have been duly revoked by a resolution of the Governing Body in its meeting held on 24.10.2021. Since the third respondent is similarly placed with the case of the aforesaid two Lecturers whose termination order has been duly revoked, the same benefit be extended to the third respondent in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
P a g e | 32
there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 123 of 2020
3 issues framed by the court
Could the aided college's governing body terminate a lecturer without obtaining the Director of Education's approval?
Was the final appellate order invalid because a subordinate officer signed its circulated copy?
Did the appellate orders setting aside the lecturer's termination warrant interference under Article 226?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and othersReferred¶133
(2009) 2 SCC 570. · Who else cites this
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶139
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1970) 1 SCC 764. · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Oinam Ibochouba Singh
The State of Manipur
The Director of University & Higher Education, Government of Manipur
Khumbongmayum Beenita Devi
M.V. MURALIDARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
