- (1.) Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs : "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.8.2000 and 19/23.10.2001 (Annexure 1 and 2) of the writ petition passed by respondent no.1 ; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner ; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the back wages and also to continue to pay the further salary ; (iv) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (vi) award cost of the petition to the petitioner."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.8.2000 and 19/23.10.2001 were passed by the Vice Chancellor, BHU, Varanasi, respondent no.1 without considering the reply of the petitioner and without recording any reason for not accepting the reply/explanation for his absence. The order dated 19/23.10.2001 is beyond jurisdiction, inasmuch as the appeal could have been decided only by the executive council in view of the specific provision of the Second proviso to Section 7-C(5) of Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The approval dated 10.10.2002 given by the Executive committee of the order of the Vice Chancellor, BHU, Varanasi dated 19/23.10.2001, was also wholly arbitrary and illegal and beyond the powers conferred under Second Proviso to Section 7C (5) of the Act. He submits that the services of the petitioner was terminated without following due procedure of law and without considering the explanation of the petitioner and as such the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the entire action of the respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner were wholly arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.;