- (1.) THE Board of Directors of Allahabad Agricultural Institute, a registered Society managing the said institution known as Allaha bad Agricultural Institute and the institution are the two petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8-11-1994 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad whereby the order of the Director dated 7-11- 1994 suspending Mr. David Vinai Watford, respondent No. 4, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against him on two charges, has been revoked by the Vice-Chancellor.
(2.) WHEN this writ petition was filed by Sri Ravi Kant and Sri J. Nagar on 16-11-1994, the opposite parties accepted notice and it was directed that affidavits be exchanged so that the matter be heard finally at the admission stage. The opposite party No. 4 Sri D. V. Watford is represented by Sri Ashok Khare while the Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad University is represented by Sri Ashok Bhushan and respondents No. 2 and 3 who are officers of State, are represented by Sri D. R. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel. Since affidavits have been exchanged and the matter appears urgent, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties the petition is being finally disposed of. The controversy centres round the only point as to whether on the facts and circumstances arising in the instant case the Vice-Chancellor could interfere with the order of suspension which was passed by the Director for and on behalf of the Institute during the disciplinary proceeding against the said teacher, At the outset it may be mentioned that Shri Ashok Khare drew the attention of the court to paragraph No. 2 of the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No. 4, the teacher concerned. On the strength of these averments it was argued that the order of suspension as well as the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings ate accentuated with mala fide intention and bias on the part of the Director.
(3.) WHILE it is true that the petitioner has filed two writ petitions in this Court, against the Director and the Institute challenging the appointment of the Director (Dr. R. B. Lai ). In one of the petitions some further informa tions have been sought by court. Neither of the petitions have been admitted nor has any order been passed. Suffice it to say that this writ petition has to be decided on the mate rials existing herein and no, observation or finding in this case may be used in any of the pending writ petition.;