- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby it dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge who declined the appellant's prayer for quashing order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the Kuladhipati (Chancellor) of Awadesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa (hereinafter described as 'the University') under Section 14(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, "the Act"). The appellant was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University on 15.9.2003 for a period of four years. Upon receipt of complaints/information relating to administrative, financial and academic irregularities allegedly committed by the appellant, the Chancellor passed order dated 23.9.2006 whereby he constituted a three member committee under Section 14(3) of the Act to inquire into the matter and submit report within six weeks. The committee issued notice to the appellant to enable him to represent his cause but instead of appearing before the committee, the appellant deputed some officers of the University, who produced the records. At the conclusion of inquiry, the committee submitted report dated 22.11.2006 with the finding that ten out of the seventeen allegations were prima facie established against the appellant. Thereafter, the Chancellor issued notice dated 6.12.2006 to the appellant in terms of Section 14(4) of the Act and called upon him to show cause as to why an order may not be passed for his removal from the post of Vice-Chancellor on the ground of his failure to perform duties in accordance with clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 14(3) of the Act. In paragraph 8 of the notice, the Chancellor indicated that if the appellant wants to inspect any of the documents relating to the University or obtain copies thereof for the purpose of his defence, then he may submit a list of such documents to the Registrar of the University.
(3.) THE appellant challenged the show cause notice in Writ Petition No. 18479/ 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court THEreafter, the appellant submitted reply dated 10.12.2006 stating therein that first an inquiry should have been held under Section 10 and only thereafter an action could be taken under Section 14 of the Act. He also claimed that copies of the records enclosed with the show cause notice were not supplied to him and in the absence thereof, it was not possible for him to know whether any record was enclosed with the report. Simultaneously, he reserved the right to submit reply to the show cause notice after receipt of the enclosed records. This is evinced from the following extract of the reply: "Copies of the records reportedly enclosed in the Show Cause Notice of the Hon'ble Chancellor dated 6.12.2006 should have been provided to me with the Show Cause Notice but these have not been provided to me with the Show Cause Notice. In the absence of these, examination of the records is not possible because it is not in my knowledge that if there is any record also enclosed with the Enquiry Report. I reserve my right to give reply to the Show Cause Notice on receipt of the enclosed records, and have been submitting the reply of the Enquiry Report..." The Chancellor rejected the appellant's plea that an inquiry should have been held under Section 10 as a condition precedent to the initiation of action under Section 14 of the Act and passed order dated 25.1.2007 requiring him to relinquish the post of Vice-Chancellor with effect from 27.1.2007.;