- (1.) The Committee of Management of Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra (The College) through its Secretary and the Principal have filed this petition to assail the order dated 23 July 2016 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Agra (The University) that disapproves the order dated 13 June 2016 of the Committee of Management of the College to suspend Dr. Sanjay Kumar Misra, a Reader in the College who has been impleaded as respondent no.3 in this petition.
(2.) The Committee of Management of the College in its meeting held on 13 June 2016 resolved to suspend Dr. Sanjay Kumar Misra and appointed a three member committee to hold disciplinary enquiry against him. The suspension order states that Dr. Misra had misbehaved with the Principal of the College on 16 April 2016 and after tearing the notice dated 7 April 2016 issued to him, threw the torn papers on his table. He conducted an act of indiscipline by raising his voice and hurling abuses at the Principal. All this was captured on the CCTV camera. The entire papers relating to suspension of Dr. Misra were sent to the Vice-Chancellor of the University who under section 35(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973(The Act) has the power to revoke or modify the order of suspension. The Vice-Chancellor of the University by the impugned order has revoked the suspension order for reasons which are reproduced below :- "9. There have been allegations and counter allegations against both the parties. It is matter of deep concern. About twenty five persons were seen agitating in the Principal's Office at the time of the incident which is captured in the CCTV Camera footage and produced before undersigned, which the Second Party has not denied. However, charges have been framed only against the First Party and served upon the First Party on 01.07.2016 by the Second Party and left all other unnoticed whereas the alleged agitation was a collective move of a group of teachers. From the aforesaid Footage, it is crystal clear that two persons have torn off the alleged notice and threw papers on the Principal. The Beating of the Principal's office table, shouting at the Principal of the college is also clear from the aforesaid footage. , 10. The First Party alleges that the Second Party has suspended only the First Party on 13.6.2016 and thereby penalised only the First Party for the misconduct committed by others also and he (the First Party) has specifically argued that the Second Party has singled him out to punish him intentionally and discriminately for the reasons best known to it. On viewing the CCTV Camera footage on the day of the incidence two teachers are seen of tearing the alleged notice and throwing on the Principal. Why only one teacher i.e. the First Party has been suspended and no action was been taken against the other teacher who has also torn off the alleged notice and threw on the Principal. From the aforesaid analysis and investigation, I reach to the conclusion that the Second Party has acted discriminately with malafide objects against the First Party in suspending him, which reflects partiality done with First Party. 11. Without going into merit of the claims and counter claims raised by both the parties, I am of the opinion prima facie that the suspension dated 13.6.2016 by the Second Party against the First Party is discriminatory, illegal, unlawful and not sustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be disapproved. 12. The points and the charges mentioned in the charge sheet are serious allegations that are yet to be substantiated by the enquiry which is pending in this case. Therefore, the Second Party is directed to conclude the departmental enquiry into the aforesaid incident dated 16.04.2016 within one month from the date of passing of this order by affording full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and may take action under the Statutory Provisions against the persons found guilty. Thus, the First Party's aforesaid suspension dated 13.06.2016 is hereby disapproved."
(3.) The petition is being disposed of at this stage as all the learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that they do not wish to file any counter affidavit and the matter be heard finally.;