- (1.) U. P. Singh, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Chancellor dated 3-8- 1979 (Annexure-10) and the orders of the Vice-Chancellor dated 1-7-1978 and 12-7-1978 con tained in Annexures-7 and 13 respectively. He has further prayed for not giving any effect to the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 19-6-1978, terminating the services of the petitioner and has asked for a direction to be issued to respondents to permit him to work as Princi pal of the Mahamana Malviya Degree College, Khekra, district Meerut.
(2.) IN My 1974 the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the Mahamana Malviya Degree College, Khekra, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "the college" ). IN the year 1977 the University Examinations were held. A report regarding certain irregularities in the conduct of the examination at the said Degree College, which was an Examination Centre of the University, had been received by the University. On it, the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University appointed a committee to enquire into the alleged irregularities, committed in the conduct of the examination at the college. The Inquiry Committee enquired into the matter and found that in the conduct of the examination of the University for the year 1977, at the college centre, the petitioner was acting as Senior Superintendent of the Examination Centre. He had appointed Sri Data Ram Misra and Sri Jagdish Kumar as Assistant Superintendents for conducting examinations, although, Sri M. N. Sharma, who was the senior most teacher of the college, was not appointed as Assistant Superintendent for conducting the examinations. The Inquiry Committee found gross irregularities committed by the petitioner in the conduct of the examinations. la the said examina tion the petitioner's son Sri Rahul was also appearing in the University Examination from the said college- In the evening shift on 29-4-1977 his son Rahul appeared at the examination in Basic Statistics General course. After considering the statements of the witnesses, the Inquiry Committee found that the petitioner illegally helped his son and the petitioner had replaced the answer book of his son and that signatures of the Invigilator on the alleged answer book were not of the Invigilator Sri S. K. Sharma. The Inquiry Committee found that the examination of Sri Rahul was not fair. It, therefore, recommended that the examination of Sri Rahul be arranged in the University. The report of the Inquiry Committee was com municated by the University in its letter of September, 1977 to the college, directing the Management of the College that necessary action should be taken against the person who wore in the employment of the college. In its meeting held on 19-9-1977 the Committee of Management, after considering the report of the Inquiry Committee, by its resolution suspended the petitioner and resolved to hold an inquiry in the entire matter. la pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 27- 9-1977. It was specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet that a meeting of the Inquiry Committee shall be held in the college premises on 16-10-1977 and that the petitioner should present himself in the said meeting. Although the charge-sheet was received by the petitioner, he did not submits his reply and by his letter dated 12-10-1977 he asked for further time of 15 days to submit his reply. On his request, the meeting of the Inquiry Committee was adjourned to 25-10-1977. The petitioner was again informed by registered post on 19-10-1977. Although it was received by him, the petitioner again did not appear before the enquiry committee on 25-10-1977. , 5 Thereafter, the Inquiry Committee considered every aspect of the matter" and found that the petitioner had committed illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of the University Examinations, held in April/ May 1977- In fact, he had changed the answer book of his son Sri Rahul with ulterior motive. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended that the petitioner should be punished. On 3- 11-1977, the Committee of Management, after considering the report of the Inquiry Committee, unanimously resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service and further that necessary approval of the Vice-Chancellor be obtained. ' 6. The Vice-Chancellor, then gave notice to the petitioner and the respondent to consider the matter on 21-12-1977. It was adjourned to 23 12 1977 and on that date Vice-Chancellor heard the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor, vide his letter dated 24-12-1977 directed the respondents that the petitioner be given one more chance to appear before the Inquiry Committee and copies of all the rele vant papers be also given to the petitioner. 7. The Inquiry Committee, thereafter, fixed the matter on 20 1 1978 about which, the information was sent to the petitioner by regis tered cost which was received by him, but even then he did not appear before the inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee again considered the matter and confirmed its report dated 25-S04977. Thereafter, the Managing Committee vide its letter dated 23-1-1978 informed the Univer sity that the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. It Seated the Vice- Chancellor to accord approve to the proposal of the Committee of Management for dismissal of the petitioner. All the documents demanded by the petitioner were given to him on 14-2-1978 m the office of the University. A copy of the letter of the Managing Committee 252 23 1-1978 containing the endorsement made by the petitioner m token of receipt of ail the papers, has been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit as Annexure-5a. 8. Thereafter, the Committee of Management again received a letter from the University, stating that all the documents demanded by the peti tioner, were handed over to him on 14-2-1978 and the petitioner had been directed to appear before the Inquiry Committee on 24-2-1978. By the said letter, the Committee of Management was required to submit his case after 24-2-1978 for consideration of the Vice-Chancellor. In spite of the said letter of the University, the petitioner again did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. The Secretary of the Managing Committee there fore, by his letter dated 25-2- 1978 informed the Vice-Chancellor that inspite of the direction given by the University, the petitioner did not appear on 24-2-1978. It stated that the petitioner had now been given enough opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Committee, but he did not avail the same. It was requested that the Vice Chancellor should now accord approval to the proposal of the Committee of Management for dis missal of the petitioner. After receiving this information, the University again asked the respondents and the petitioner to appeal before the Vice-Chancellor on 24-4-1978- On the said date the Vice-Chancellor heard the parties and by his letter dated 29-5-1978 informed the petitioner and the respondents to appear before him again on 5-6-1978 along with relevant papers. 9. Again on 5-6-1978 the Vice-Chancellor heard the matter and, after considering the entire material on record, by his letter dated 15-6-1978 found that the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management was harsh and requested the Management to reconsider the same. In pursuance of the said order of the Vice-Chancellor the Committee of Management reconsidered the matter in its meeting of 19-6-1978 and resolved that instead of dismissal his services should be terminated. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor, after considering the entire material on record, by his order dated 1-7-1978, granted approval to the proposal of the Committee of Management for terminating the services of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 1st July, 1978 by preferring a Reference under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, before the Chancellor. After considering the entire material on record, the Chancellor rejected the Reference of the petitioner by his order dated 3-8-1979. The Chancellor found that the peti tioner was given enough opportunity but he failed to co-operate with the Inquiry Committee. He was rightly found guilty and, as such, the order of termination passed by the Committee of Management, had been rightly approved by the Vice- Chancellor. The Chancellor also found that the order of the Vice-Chancellor, granting approval, was in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Statutes, and, there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act, Statutes or Ordinances. On these findings, the Chancellor rejected the Reference by the aforesaid order, which is contained in Annexure-10 11. The petitioner has assailed the orders of the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor and in this writ petition, he has prayed for a writ of mandamus, commanding the Committee of Management not to give effect to its resolution dated 3-11-1977 and 19-6-1978. The challenge has been founded primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing either by the Inquiry Committee or by the Com mittee of Management or the Vice-Chancellor. It was further contended that the approval accorded by the Vice-Chancellor was illegal. 12. On consideration of the entire material on record emerging from the petition, counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavit filed in this case, none of these contentions are to be validly accepted and are, accordingly rejected. 13. The contention of the petitioner is contrary to the record, inas much as, he was afforded reasonable opportunity at every stage, but he failed to avail the same. It appears that the petitioner deliberately avoided the Inquiry Committee and the Committee of Management and inspite of various opportunities afforded to him, he did not appear either before the Inquiry Committee or the Committee of Management and, therefore, the Committee of Management was totally justified in accordance with the pro visions of the Act and the statutes and its proposal for terminating the services of the petitioner was validly approved by the Vice-Chancellor. On appeal, the Chancellor as well, validly recorded his finding that although the petitioner had been given opportunity at every stage, he failed to co-operate with the inquiry Committee and that the approval given by the Vice-Chancellor was in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the petitioner was found guilty of serious charges of committing illegalities and irregularities in the examinations conducted by the University. It has been amply proved on record that the petitioner and his son had copied the answers at their house. In fact, the petitioner's son had not even passed Intermediate class and the petitioner being the Principal of the College and Superintendent of the Examination Centre, illegally admitted him in B. A. Class and permitted him to appear at the examination of the University. A copy of the letter of the Board of High School and Intermediate Educa tion, U. P. Allahabad, contained in Annexure-CA-11 filed with the counter-affidavit, has been referred to prove that the petitioner's son had not passed the Intermediate class. The facts of this case has further established that the petitioner had changed the answer book of his son. It was further found by the Inquiry Committee, on consideration of materials on record that the signatures of the Invigilator were not present on the answer book. 14. In this view, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the impugned orders did not call for any interference and are, accordingly, upheld. 15. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Consequently interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;