- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. The only question which has cropped up for the time being for decision of this court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India resolves round the powers of the Chancellor to pass an order under sub-section (12) of Section 12 of Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act (for Short, the Act) particularly keeping in view the facts involved, whether the aforesaid order of the Chancellor dated 13- 3-1995 would be justi fiable on the materials existing on the record or not.
(2.) IN the very nature of the things, the office of Vice-Chancellor of a University commands more respect than other Heads of the INstitution and every precaution has been taken under the provisions of the Act to see that the persons appointed as Vice-Chancellor of various Universities in the State of Uttar Pradesh come from a category of persons selected by a highly responsible personnel Committee. IN other words the powers of the Chancellor as they stood before U. P. Act No. 20 of 1994 did not empower the Chancellor to order removal of a Vice-Chancellor much less suspend him from working as the Vice- Chancellor during the pendency of or in contemplation of an enquiry under Section 12 (12) of the Act. Though a casual reference was made by learned counsel for the petitioner saying that the aforesaid provisions are draconian in nature but since the arguments ware confined to the facts of the case, this Court is not for the time being, going into the legality or vires of the aforesaid Section 12 of the Act. Professor B. S. Rajput took over as the Vice-Chancellor of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal on 1-12-1992. The impugned order of the Chancellor dated 13-3-1995, reads as under (Translation by the Court) 5 "on reading the complaints and the nothings upon them it appears to the Chancellor that you are flouting the provisions of the Act as a result of which the Chancellor has charged you with the charges enclosed in the Annexure 1. For enquiring into those charges Sri Ramesh Chandra, Chairman, Board of Revenue has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and it is expected of him that he would submit his report within three months to the Chancellor. It is farther expected of him that if some further charges come to his notice or some further facts are brought to his notice he will be competent to frame additional charges and submit his report thereon also. During the pendency of the enquiry, in exercise of the powers, conferred by Section 12, sub-section (13) of the Act the Chancellor directs that you are to refrain from acting as Vice-Chancellor and he has further directed that during the said period Professor K. P. Nautiyal, Head of the History Department of the University will look after the work of the Vice- Chancellor. Sd/- Sushil Chandra Tripathi Principal Secretary to the Chancellor. " The charge as appended to the aforesaid letter translated into English, would read thus :- "no post of Executive Engineer has been sanctioned by the Govern ment in the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar but in September, 1990 the then Vice-Chancellor appoin ted Captain Anil Kumar Sharma as the Executive Engineer. In this connection by letter No. 5509/15-10-90-7 (6)/90, dated 5-1-1991 the University was duly informed that the aforesaid post of the Executive Engineer was not sanctioned by the Government and that the appointment of Sri Sharma is irregular, therefore, the aforesaid appointment may be cancelled forthwith and no pay ments be made towards the said post any further. It has further been intimated that if the aforesaid post is thought necessary, the Hill Development Counsel may be consulted for its creation. You have taken over the post of Vice- Chancellor on 1-12-1992. Sri R. S. Tolia, Secretary, U. P. Government Uttaranchal Develop ment Section intimated you in his letter No. M-085/28-2-93-5 (108)/90, dated 31-5*1993 that the Government has rejected the proposal for creation of the post of Executive Engineer and, therefore, the said post be cancelled forthwith. Similar directions were contained in the letter of Sri Trilochan Prasad Sharma, Deputy Secretary, U. P. Government, Education Department in his letter No. 3071/15-10-93-35 (30)92, dated 17-11-1993 which was addressed to you. The Government was informed by Sri Deo Chandra, Deputy Director, Local Self Government. U. P. , Allaha bad through his letter No. V. M. /g-93/85, dated 26-8-1994 that the appointment against the aforesaid post was not cancelled and continuous payment was being made and in the year 1993-94 a sum of Rs. 93,400 has been paid and that in spite of specific directions you have not cancelled the post and are continuing with the irregular payment. In this manner you are wilfully disregarding the provisions contained in Section 21 (3) of the Act and are continuing with such sections. In this manner you have flouted Section 13 (4) also of the Act and I am of the opinion in accordance with the powers conferred upon me under Section 12 (2) of the Act that you are wilfully disregarding the provisions of the Act and are abusing the powers vested in you as Vice- Chancellor and, therefore, your continuance as Vice-Chancellor would be detrimental to the interest of the University. 2. The following materials will be used to substantiate charges :- (1) Dr. Harsharan Das's letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Sri R. S. Tolia's letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Sri Trilochan Prasad Sharma's letter. . . . . . . . (4) Sri Deo Chandra's letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. You are hereby directed to submit your reply to the aforesaid charges within a month. If your reply is not received within the time allowed then it will be presumed that you have nothing to say about charges and ex parts orders may be passed. 4. You are. further directed to indicate within the time allowed whether you would like to cross-examine any person or call any one in your defence and also intimate on what points would the defence witnesses be deposing about. Dated 13-3-1995 (Sd) Moti Lal Vora Chancellor"
(3.) WHEN this writ petition was filed Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on 4- 4-1995. A supplementary affidavit was filed on 7-4-1995. Sri S. N. Upadhyaya assisted by Sri Ramesh Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the Chancellor. Sri L. P. Naithani, Advocate appeared on behalf of caveator who have described themselves as Teachers Association of the University concerned. Sri M. S. Negi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Professor K. P. Nautiyal who was to look after the Office of the Vice-Chancellor in the event of suspen sion of the petitioner. All of them prayed for and were granted a week's time to file counter-affidavit and it was also directed that rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within three days thereafter. Detailed counter- affidavit on behalf of the Chancellor has been filed which is sworn by Sri Nand Kumar Pant. The impleadment application on behalf of the Teachers Association was also accompanied by an affidavit which in terms was described as a counter-affidavit to the writ petition. As stated, rejoinder affidavit have been filed along with supplementary affidavit of the petitioner sworn on 7-4-1995. Looking at the extreme urgency involved in the matter the request of the learned counsel for the parties that the case be decided finally at the admission stage was accepted. Sri S. P. Gupta, learned Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the Chancellor as well as the University. It has been stated that the affidavit filed on behalf of the Chancellor may be taken to be sufficient stand so far as the University is concerned, it may be noted here that arguments have been advanced and since the question argued touches the factual basis, any observation made hereinafter will be confined for use only in this writ petition and will not permitted to be interpreted by either side in any of the proceedings to follow.;