- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, respondent no.1, the resolution of the Executive Council dated 28.6.2009, the charge sheet dated 22.4.2009, served upon him and the enquiry report dated 27.6.2009. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service giving him all the consequential benefits treating him to be in continuous service.
(2.) The petitioner while he was working as Professor in the Commerce Department of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (the University), the Vice Chancellor appointed him as Co-ordinator for the evaluation work in the B.Ed.. examination for the session 2006-07 vide order dated 30.7.2007. After the examination was over, one Durga Prasad Yadav of Gorakhpur made a complaint to the Chief Minister on 18.6.2007 pointing out large scale irregularities in the conduct of B.Ed. entrance examination for the session 2005-06 and 2006-07.
(3.) The State Government vide order dated 20.9.2007 passed an order to hold an enquiry. Pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 12.12.2007 indicating certain irregularities. Thereafter on the basis of the aforesaid letter of the Commissioner, the State Government issued directions for conducting full fledged enquiry vide order dated 22.4.2008. The detailed enquiry was conducted by the sub-committee, constituted by the Executive Council of the University. The Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, the respondent no.6 was also one of the members of the sub-committee. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner levelling charges of irregularity committed by him in the capacity of coordinator. The sub-committee submitted the enquiry report on 27.6.2009. It will not be out of place to mention here that the sub-committee found the charges to be proved and held the petitioner responsible for the irregularities. The committee also recommended for the dismissal of the petitioner. Thereafter on 30.6.2009 the petitioner was informed by the Registrar of the University that the Executive Council of the University has dismissed him from service on 28.6.2009. While the enquiry was in progress, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24627 of 2009 before this Court which was disposed of on 21.1.2011 with the observation that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of filing the representation before the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (the Act). It was further directed by the division bench that if such representation is filed, the Chancellor may consider the same on merit and decide the representation as expeditiously as possible. It appears that after the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Chancellor, respondent no.1, which was decided on 6.2.2012 holding that the dismissal of the petitioner was not made in violation of the provision of the Act, Statute or Ordinance.;