- (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddhartha Khare, on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent-University, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent-Chancellor and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. Petitioner, before this Court, seeks quashing of the decision of the Executive Council of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi dated 13th June, 2009, the order of the Vice-Chancellor of the University dated 18th June, 2009 and the order passed by the Chancellor of the University dated 15th April, 2010. Petitioner, before this Court, was working as Professor in Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. The Bundelkhand University, Jhansi has been established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1973"). Petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on a complaint received from the National Scheduled Caste Commission, New Delhi. The enquiry proceedings resulted in a decision of the Executive Council dated 13th June, 2009, wherein it was resolved that the petitioner on the basis of the charges found proved by the departmental enquiry committee be removed from service. The decision of the Executive Council was communicated to the petitioner under the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 18th June, 2009. Not being satisfied with the decision so taken, petitioner filed reference application under Section 68 of the Act, 1973. In the reference application, amongst others, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary enquiry committee, as required to be constituted under Chapter VIII of the First Statutes of the Bundelkhand University comprising of Vice-Chancellor and two other members, had not been so constituted by the Executive Council and therefore, the entire enquiry was vitiated. It was also contended that charges, as alleged to have been proved in the departmental enquiry were in fact based on surmises and conjectures, inasmuch as the complainant girl had specifically appeared as witness before the enquiry officer and had stated that no such incident had taken place. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner stated before us that there has been infraction of the procedures prescribed for conduct of the enquiry proceedings. The entire action taken against the petitioner was vitiated. Lastly it is submitted that the order passed by the Chancellor of the University is a non-speaking order. The order although runs into nearly 7 typed pages but except for the last one and half page, the earlier pages only record the case of the rival parties. The Chancellor has not recorded any reasons after considering the various pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) Even otherwise, the reason assigned by the Chancellor qua non-constitution of the departmental enquiry committee with reference to the Statute 8.01 of Chapter VIII of the First Statutes of the University read with Statute 14.04 A and Statute 14.06 A of the First Statute of the University is based on non-consideration of the Statute 8.01. The procedure to be followed by the said departmental enquiry committee has been laid down in Statute 14.04 A and Statute 14.06 A of the First Statute of University. He submits that the said aspect of the matter has completely been ignored while passing the order impugned. The other aspects of the matter raised on behalf of the petitioner have also been ignored by the Chancellor on the ground that while deciding the matter under Section 68 of the Act, 1973, he is not required to enter into other issue as raised except the pleas qua violation of the provisions of the Acts, Statutes and Ordinances of the University. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-University supports the findings recorded in the order impugned. Same is the case of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-Chancellor. Both have fairly conceded before us that the Chancellor has not examined other please raised by the petitioner except for recoding that the provisions of Statute 8.01 would not apply. The procedure adopted by the departmental enquiry committee has been as per the Statutes 14.04 A and 14.06 A of the First Statutes of the University.
(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. At the very outset we may record that the power conferred upon the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 is a wide power which confers jurisdiction upon the Chancellor to examine even issues of facts which may be raised before him for the purposes of questioning the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, for punishing a faculty member. We may record that if an issue is raised that finding of guilt, as returned, is based on no evidence or is perverse, then the minimum expected from the Chancellor is to consider the pleas as raised and to record his finding either way. The finding of guilt returned on a charge not supported by any evidence or a perverse conclusion, in our opinion, would be unsustainable. We fail to understand as to how it can be said that a charge has been established, when there is no evidence in support of the same.;