V.M. Sahai and S.U. Khan, JJ. - (1.) WE have heard Sri D.K. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Petitioner is a Professor and Head of Department of Physics in Meerut University.
(2.) ON 12.12.2004 the Executive Council of the University directed that the disciplinary action be taken against the petitioner and Disciplinary Committee was constituted on the same date. On the same date, charge -sheet of 60 pages were also issued under the signatures of Vice Chancellor and petitioner was suspended by the Executive Council on the same date. This, prima facie, establishes that the action of the respondents in taking disciplinary action against the petitioner was with undue haste and arbitrary. However Meerut University Handbook Vol. I, Statute 8.02 provides that the Executive Council could suspend a teacher or an employee of the University on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee. The matter was required to be examined by the Disciplinary Committee and thereafter action could have been taken by the Executive Council but in the instant case everything was done on the same day in an arbitrary manner. Vice Chancellor of the University had been dismissed by the Governor on serious charges of corruption.
(3.) WE have also perused the charge -sheet. Prima facie we are of the opinion that charges leveled against the petitioner are not such on the basis of which major penalty could be inflicted. Therefore, impugned suspension order was unwarranted, unjustified and arbitrary. The Disciplinary Committee was required to fix a date of meeting and thereafter, it could have held a meeting for considering the case of petitioner but no date was fixed by the Disciplinary Committee and it appears that the action was taken by the Disciplinary Committee, Vice Chancellor and Executive Council to any how suspend the petitioner on the same day which is illegal and contrary to the rules. Therefore, the impugned suspension order cannot be maintained. Accordingly writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The suspension order dated 12.12.2004, Annexure 10 to the writ petition is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and pay his salary including arrears of salary. Since the charge -sheet has been served upon the petitioner, the petitioner shall submit reply to the charge -sheet and thereafter, respondents shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Parties shall bear their own costs.;