R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, Petitioners have challenged the order dated 2 -9 -1992, passed by the Government of U.P. under Section 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, (here -in -after referred to as the Act), appointing an authorised controller for Dharma Samaj Post Graduate College, Aligarh (here -in -after referred to as the college) which is affiliated to Agra University. Agra.
(2.) ALTHOUGH , the State has not filed counter affidavit but a counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 3, who is the Principal of the college and who was impleaded as a party to the writ petition vide court's order dated 8 -9 -1992. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 I notice dated 29 -4 -1992 was given to the Petitioners by the State Government under Section 57 of the Act calling upon them to show cause why an authorised controller under Section 58 of the Act should not be appointed. The notice contains the following charges in respect of which the Petitioners were required to submit their reply : (i) A jeep was purchased from the college fund in the name of the Secretary of the college and there was misuse of the Jeep. (ii) Sale of the land of the college situated at Badarbagh at lower price. (iii) Irregularities in the construction Of 25 -30 shops on the land of the college. (iv) Non -deposit of subscription of the provident fund of the employees of the college in the account regularly. (v) Irregularities in purchase of furniture. (vi) withdrawing a sum of Rs. 60000/ - from computer account illegally. (vii) Irregularities and delay committed by the management in the payment of salaries to the teachers and employees of the college. Petitioners submitted their reply in response to the above show cause notice, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure II to this writ petition. The Government thereafter vide its order dated 2 -9 -1992 has appointed authorised controller in exercise of its power under Section 58 of the Act.
(3.) SRI S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on four grounds, namely (i) notice under Section 57 of the Act does not contain anything, which can be co related to clauses (i) to (v) of that section, (ii) notice is vague, (iii) findings recorded by the Government are based on material, which was neither disclosed nor supplied to the Petitioners at any stage of proceedings ;and (v) many findings recorded by the Government are vague and are based on the material/ information not disclosed to the Petitioners. Sri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the, Respondent No. 3 apart from disputing the above submissions, ha? made two submission, namely (i) Act does not require that notice should contain specific charges or material particulars, and (ii) there is nothing to show that there is any prejudice caused to the Petitioners on account of non disclosure of material in the charges contained in the notice.;