- (1.) THE petitioner Madan Gopal Gupta has filed the present application for striking out defence of the Agra Univer sity and its authorities in Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1970 filed by him challenging the validity of a resolution of the Executive Council of the Agra University dated 27th September, 1970, terminating his services from the post of Registrar of the University.
(2.) THE petitioner was Registrar of the Agra University. Certain charges were framed against him which were enquired into by a committee constituted by the Executive Council of the University. On the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee, the Executive Council of the University passed a resolution dated 27th September. 1970, ter minating the petitioner's services. The peti tioner thereupon filed writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Cons titution (Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1970) challenging the said resolution of the Exe cutive Council on various grounds. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner was that the resolution of the Executive Council was vitiated because Sri Shital Prasad, the then Vice-Chancellor and Sri L. N. Varshney, a Member of the Executive Council, had ap peared as witnesses against the petitioner be fore the Committee of Enquiry and when the matter came up for final consideration before the Executive Council the said two persons participated in the meeting and held the charges proved against the petitioner. The Vice-Chancellor and L. N. Varshney, thus acted as witnesses as well as judges of then: own cause. Allegations of mala fide were also made against the Vice-Chancellor. The writ petition came up for final hearing before me in September, 1971, Arguments were heard for several days but before the arguments could conclude the hearing was adjourned due to the interven ing Dashera holidays. It appears that the authorities of the University realised that the participation of Sri Shital Prasad, Vice-Chan-cellor and Sri L. N. Varshney vitiated the resolution. They, therefore, took steps to re move the alleged infirmity. During the Dashera holidays the Executive Council of the University at its meeting held on 1st October, 1971, passed a unanimous resolu tion reiterating the earlier findings against the petitioner and reaffirming the resolution No. 175 of 27th September, 1970, terminat ing the petitioner's services. Sri Shital Pra sad, Vice-Chancellor and Sri Varshney did not participate in the meeting held on 1st October, 1971. The University thus tried to remove the infirmity which had crept in the resolution of the Executive Council dated 27th September, 1970. The petitioner there upon filed a contempt application in this Court against the Vice-Chancellor, the Offi ciating Registrar and sixteen members of the Executive Council of the Agra University who had participated in the meeting dated 1st October, 1971. The petitioner alleged that the object underlying the summoning of special meeting of 1st October, 1971 and the passing of the said resolution on that day was to influence the judicial proceedings pending before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1970. During the contempt pro ceedings the hearing of the Writ Petition was adjourned, Brother T. Ramabhadran J. heard the contempt matter. By his order dated 29th November, 1971, Ramabhadran, J., held that Shital Prasad, Vice-Chancellor and the Officiating Registrar were not guilty of contempt charge but the sixteen members of the Executive Council who attended the meeting of the Executive Council on 1st October, 1971 and passed the resolution against the petitioner were guilty of contempt. The sixteen members of the Executive Coun cil (including respondents Nos. 4 to 10 to the Writ Petition) tendered unqualified apo logy which was accepted by Ramabhadran, J. and the notices issued against them were discharged and no penalty was imposed against them. The petitioner thereupon filed the present application before me with a prayer that' since the respon dents were held guilty of contempt of this Court, the defence of the University in the Writ Petition should be struck off. The Uni versity authorities, according to the peti tioner, were not entitled to hearing unless the contempt was purged and the resolution dated 1st October, 1971, was withdrawn.
(3.) THE petitioner further filed an ap plication for amendment of the Writ Petition challenging the resolution of the University Executive Council dated 1st October, 1971. Respondents in the Writ Petition filed reply to the amendment application. They contend ed that the infirmity in the earlier resolution of the Executive Council dated 27th Septem ber, 1970, stood removed by the resolution dated 1st October, 1971. It was further al leged that the validity of the petitioner's re moval from service should be considered in the light of the resolution passed by the Exe cutive Council on 1st October, 1971. Thus the Executive Council has placed reliance on its resolution dated 1st October, 1971, which was the subject- matter of contempt proceedings before Ramabhadran, J.;