M.L.Bhat - (1.) THE petitioners were suspended from service on identical grounds on 11-7-1991. THE impugned orders are contained in Annexure Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in respect of the three petitioners respectively. Petitioners' challenge the suspension orders through the medium of this petition. A further writ of mandamus is prayed, directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful functioning and to pay them salary as admissible to them under rules. By an interim order dated 31-1-1992 this Court had directed that till 3-3-1992 suspension proceedings will continue but no final order will be passed against the petitioners.
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is said to have been appointed as Assistant Lecturer in the institution in question on 16-12-1980. PETITIONER No. 2 was appointed on 16-12-1980 and petitioner No. 3 was also appointed as teacher in C.T. grade on 16-12-1980. The institution in question is said to be affiliated with Sampuranand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the 'University'). The statutes framed by the University are applicable to the petitioners. Under the statute Vice-Chancellor has accorded the approval to the petitioners' appointment on 30-3-1982. The suspension orders passed against the petitioners are said to have been passed by the Manager of the institution who has no jurisdiction to pass such order. The Managing Committee also has no power to pass such order because it is not validly constituted. Section 2 (13) of the U. P. Universities Act of 1973, provides that the managing committee or other body charged with the managing affairs of the college must be recognised as such by the University. The petitioners have placed on record letter dated 28-8-1991 (Annexure-9) purported to have been issued by Deputy Secretary (Affiliation), by which it appears that the Committee of Management is not validly recognised by the University. It is, further contended that charge-sheet was served on the petitioner No. 1 on 7-9-1991 and upon the petitioner No. 2 and 3 on 10-9-1991. The charge-sheet was required to be filed within 4 weeks from the date of suspension. Since that was not done, therefore, the suspension is rendered illegal. Reliance is placed on statute No. 17.07 of the Statute of University which reads as under :- "The Management shall have the power to suspend a teacher during the pendency or in contemplation of an inquiry into charge against him, on the grounds mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Statute 17.04. In an emergency, (in the case of a teacher other than Principal) this power may be exercised by the Principal in anticipation of the approval of the Management. The Principal shall immediately report such case to the Management. The order of suspension if passed in contemplation of an Inquiry, shall cease at the end of four weeks of its operation, unless the teacher has in the meantime been communicated the charge or charges on which the inquiry was contemplated."
(3.) PETITIONERS' salary is said to have been stopped from May 1991 without any justification. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. It is stated that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 did not possess minimum qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Lecturers in the college. However, they have secured approval from the University by some manoeuvring. It is also submitted that management is also validly constituted. There is no dispute. University has recognised the Managing Committee and treated one Hari Prasad as Manager of the duly constituted Managing Committee. The letter contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition is said to be false and frivolous document. The charge-sheet containing serious charges were sent to the petitioners on 29-7-1991 by a special messenger Sri Mangoo Ram a class IV employee in the college who was accompanied by one Sri Gopal Dubey, a clerk in the college but the petitioners are said to have refused to accept it and Mangoo Ram is said to have made report to this effect. True copies of this report pertaining to petitioners No. 1 & 3 are placed on record as Annexure C.A.-4 and 5. However, Mangoo Ram's report in respect to petitioner No. 2 is said to be not traceable at present but the deponent submits that he had read the report of Mangoo Ram in respect of the petitioner No. 2's service which is identical to the report submitted by him in respect of the petitioners No. 1 & 3. For abundant caution charge-sheets were sent to the petitioners by registered post on 7-8-1991. Same were returned by the post-man as the petitioners were avoiding service of the registered letters.;