Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24th November, 1991, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by the Chancellor, Avadh University. The impugned order has been passed by the Chancellor under the provisions contained in subsections (12) and (13) of Section 12 of the State Universities Act. The said two provisions contained in sub-sections (12) and (13) of Section 12 are in force by virtue of Section 3 of the Latter Pradesh State Universities (Amendment) (Third) Ordinance, 1991 (U. P. Ordinance No. 37 of 1991) by which the said two sub-sections have been added to Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act (for convenience to be referred to hereinafter as the Act) after sub-section (If). The Chancellor, in exercise of his powers under subsections (12 and (13) of the Act refrained the petitioner from performing the functions of the office of Vice-Chancellor but it has been ordered that he shall continue to get the emoluments to which he was otherwise entitled.
(2.) It appears that the opposite parties were served at the admission stage and affidavits were exchanged- On one of the dates it was observed by this Court that the petition was likely to be finally disposed of on one of the dates fixed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on 4-2-1992. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted by the learned counsel, that be had concluded his arguments even for the purpose of final hearing of the matter and had nothing more to add even if the matter is put off for final hearing on some other date. The anxiety of the petitioner for decision of the petition was that his term expires on 3-3-1992 and it was apprehended that it would be rendered in fructuous thereafter. We, therefore, concluded the hearing for finally disposing of the petition as prayed on behalf of the petitioner.
(3.) The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge, for which order refraining the petitioner from performing the functions of the office of Vice-Chancellor has been passed, is not one that can be said to be related to his capacity as Vice-Chancellor. To appreciate this argument it will be necessary to peruse the charges and the relevant provisions of the Act. A charge sheet dated November 24, 1991, was also served upon the petitioner. The first charge is that on 27-10* 1991 at about 5 P.M, the petitioner alongwith his bodyguard and two research scholars went to the house of the Dr. Ghanshyam Mirsa. Lecturer in Chemistry Department, Kamla Nehru Sansthan, Sultanpur. The petitioner is said to have asked Dr. Ghan Shyam Misra to increase the marks of three students of B.Sc. III year. It is alleged that Dr. Misra expressed his inability, upon Which the petitioner asked his body-guard and other two research scholars to catch hold of Dr. Misra and then gave a blow on the head of Dr. Misra with a danda, causing injury to Dr. Misra. Many persons have been indicated in the charge-sheet as witnesses in support of the charges. The second charge is that the petitioner had left the head quarters by taking casual leave without permission and no one was authorised to look after the work of the Vice-Chancellor in his absence. The third charge is that he went abroad without obtaining the permission of the Chancellor from 2-15-1991 to 20-11-1991.;