S. C. Mathur, J. - (1.) DR. Mahabir Saran Dass Jaiswal, Reader in Surgery, Department of Surgery, K. G.'s Medical College, Lucknow has approached this Court against the order dated 16th March 1990, Annexure-1 passed by the Principal of the King George's Medical College, Lucknow dismissing him from the Assistant Provost-ship of C. V. Hall of the College "with immediate effect" for his misconduct towards the Principal.
(2.) THE above order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is pointed out that on the face of it the order is stigmatic in as much as it alleges misconduct on the part of the petitioner towards the Principal. In the counter affidavit filed by the Principal it has not been alleged that the impugned order was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned standing counsel, however, submitted that provost-ship of the Hall is not a public office and the same is held at the pleasure of the Principal and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Indeed the petitioner has not invited our attention to any statutory provision governing appointment to the post of Assistant Provost. It also appears that no extra remuneration or allowance is payable to the incumbent of the post. It may be assumed that the Principal has (sic) sole discretion to appoint incumbent of the post. The post is, however, offered to one already holding a public office. It is, so to say, an adjunct to the public office held by a person. Any allegation of misconduct concerning the adjunct office is likely to have reflection on the Image of the incumbent as holder of public office. Accordingly the allegation of "misconduct towards the Principal" is likely to have prejudicial effect on the service career of the petitioner as Reader in King George's Medical College. Reader-ship in King George's Medical College is a public office. The petitioner is in the employment of U. P. Government. Since the allegation of misconduct is likely to affect petitioner's service career as a public servant, we are of the opinion, that the petitioner was entitled to opportunity of hearing before being condemned as an indisciplined person. Accordingly the order contained in Annexure-1 cannot be sustained.
(3.) ANOTHER prayer made in the petition is to issue a mandamus directing opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 to immediately allow the petitioner to take possession of the fiunglow No. 2 at Shahmina Road, Lucknow. This prayer has been made on the basis of allotment order dated 28th February 1990 made in favour of the petitioner by the Medical Superintendent, Incharge of Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals, Lucknow. In the counter affidavit filed by the Principal it has been stated that the Medical Superintendent Incharge of Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals, Lucknow has nothing to do with the allotment of accommodation in King George's Medical College campus. It is pointed out that there is a house allotment committee which considers applications for allotment. It is also stated that when the petitioner sought appointment as Assistant Provost of C. V. Hall he gave an undertaking to stay in the accommodation adjacent to the Hall. A copy of the undertaking has been filed as Annexure CA-I. This is a letter dated 22nd August 1986 addresssed by the petitioner to the Principal of K. G.s Medical College. In paragraph 2 of the letter he has stated that "I am already living in the bunglow adjacent to C. V. Hall, which had been designated asJAsstt. Warden's bunglow C. V. Hall since this hostel was constructed give undertaking that I shall live in above said bunglow for benefit of residents of C. V. Hall and better supervision of hostel working". It is not disputed that the petitioner wrote such a letter to the Principal. The petitioner's learned counsel has not disputed the existence of house allotment committee which deals with the question of allotment of accommodation in the King George's Medical College campus. Admittedly bo order of allotment, final or provisional has so far been made by that committee. Accordingly the petitioner's claim to occupy Bunglaw No. 2 at Shahmina Road, Lucknow cannot be sustained. To this extent the writ petition will accordingly have to be dismissed. This order will not debar the petitioner from pressing his claim for allotment of Bunglow No. 2 at 6hahmina Road, Lucknow, before the house allotment committee and the committee will be entitled to deal with petitioner's application taking into account all relevant factors, including the interest of the students staying in the hostel and petitioner's own undertaking contained in Annexure CA-l to the counter affidavit.;