- (1.) In response to an advertisement issued by the Punjab Agricultural University for the post of Dean, College of Animal Science, in 1968, the petitioner applied for the post and joined service on February 29, 1969. He was called upon to execute a bond to serve the University for a minimum period of three year. The Punjab Agricultural University at Ludhiana was bifurcated into two Universities, namely, haryana Agricultural University at Hissar and Punjab Agricultural University at Ludhiana, under the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, 1970. The petitioner was allocated to the Haryana Agricultural University. The Vice Chancellor of that University came to know that the petitioner had sold the theses submitted by his students for a consideration to the University Library. He also came into possession of some other allegations against the petitioner. The Vice Chancellor sent D.O. letter dated March 13/14, 1972, to the petitioner asking him to resign within a month and in case he did not do so the Vice-Chancellor would be constrained to make out a case for termination of his services. The petitioner did not oblige the Vice-Chancellor who prepared a note and submitted it to the Board of Management which was considered in a meeting held on February 9, 1973 The Board passed the following resolution :- "The Board took a serious view of the disclosures made in this note, regarding the conduct of Dr. S.S. Prabhu, Dean, College of Animal Sciences and the State of affairs of the College. The Board agreed with the Vice-Chancellor that it was not in the interests of the University or the College to allow this Dean to continue any longer. However, in view of his seniority and status in the University, the Board felt that he should be given one more chance to submit his resignation and leave with grace. In case he fails to do so, the Board authorised the Vice-Chancellor to suspend him and take necessary action for his removal/dismissal. The members endorsed the Vice Chancellor's view that radical measures should be taken to set-matters right in the functioning of this College". The petitioner was asked to resign but he declined to submit his resignation. Thereupon, the Vice-Chancellor issued to him his resignation. Thereupon, the Vice-Chancellor issued to him a charge-sheet on February 26, 1973, in the covering letter to which he reproduced the resolution dated February 9, 1973, of the Board of Management, and stated - "As Dr. Prabhu has declined to submit his resignation, there is no option but to suspend him and take necessary action for his removal/dismissal". In the charge-sheet, it was stated by the Vice-Chancellor after setting out the charges that - "You are hereby informed that it is proposed to remove you from the service of the University, and accordingly you are required within a fortnight from the receipt of this charge-sheet, to state, in writing, whether you admit the truth of all or any of the charges, what explanation or defence, if any you have to offer, and whether you desire to be heard in person. If you wish to inspect the files and documents, on which the charges are based, you can do so in my office". The petitioner filed the present petition to challenge the issuance of the charge-sheet to him, and the order of his suspension.
(2.) Written statement has been filed by the Vice-Chancellor to which replication has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) After perusal of the resolution passed by the Board of Management, the letter and the charge sheet issued by the Vice-Chancellor to the petitioner, it is evident that the punishment to be meted out to the petitioner had already been decided upon and he was asked to show cause why that punishment should not be awarded to him. The punishment suggested was removal from service. The charges against the petitioner had yet to be proved and, according to the rules of the University, an Inquiry Officer was to be appointed on whose report the punishing authority had to make up his mind as to the punishment to be awarded to him. The petitioner was thereafter to be given another notice to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him. In the instant case, the punishing authority determined the punishment of removal from service. Such a notice cannot form the basis of an enquiry against the petitioner, as was held by me in Amar Nath v. The Commissioner and others, 1969 CurLJ 484. In that case, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner stated inter-alia : "Please show cause within a week from the receipt of this charge-sheet as to why you should not be dismissed from the Municipal service under the rules framed for the dismissal of municipal employees on account of the above-mentioned grave charge against you". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in that case that in the notice the punishment could not be stated and a combined notice of this sort was illegal and could not form the basis of a departmental enquiry and punishment as a result thereof. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of B.C. Mitra, J. of the Calcutta High Court in Gauri Pr. Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and others,1968 SLR 625. Following that judgment, I held that the show cause notice in that case was bad, the enquiry held on the basis thereof was bad and so was the order of dismissal passed on the report of the Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice some observations of the Supreme Court in Khem Chand v. The Union of India and others, 1958 SCR 1080(at P. 1101), which lead to the same conclusion. These observations are : "This procedure also has the merit of giving some assurance to the officer concerned that the competent authority maintains an open mind with regard to him. If the competent authority were to determine, before the charges were proved, that a particular punishment would be meted out the government servant concerned, the latter may well feel that the competent authority had formed an opinion against him, generally on the subject matter of the charge or, at any rate, as regards the punishment itself. Considered from this aspect also the construction adopted by us appears to be consonant with the fundamental principle of jurisprudence that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to have been done".;