- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. In this writ peti tion, Sri S. N. Upadhyay appeared for respondent No. 1 and Sri Vijaya Bahadur Singh appeared for respondent No. 2 Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) THE facts, in short, necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner Dr. Indrapal Singh was ap pointed Vice Chancellor of Chandra Shek har Azad University of Agriculture and Technology (here-in-after referred to as 'university') by the Chancellor by his order dated 14th April, 1994 for a period of three years. A copy of the order of appointment has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He assumed charge of the office of vice Chancellor in pursuance of the aforesaid appointment on 23rd April, 1994, THE Chancellor, however, vide order dated 6th June, 1996 has suspended petitioner with full pay. This order has been passed on various allegations of corrupt practices, abuse of power, favoritism, financial ir regularities etc. By another order of the same day, respondent No. 2 Sri Prabhat Chandra Chaturvedi, Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur has been appointed as Vice Chancellor to discharge the duty during the period of suspension. THE legality and correctness of the aforesaid two orders has been questioned by petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 11 of Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam), 1958, (here in-after referred to as Act'), the appoint ment of the petitioner was for three years and in view of the provisions contained in sub-Section (2), (4) and (6) of Section 11, the petitioner cannot be suspended from his office which amounts to curtailment of the tenure of three years prescribed by law. It has been further submitted that in whole of the Act or Statute framed therein, there is no provision conferring power on the Chan cellor to suspend or dismiss Vice- Chancel lor during period of three years and in the circumstances the order is without authority of law. It has also been submitted that Section 16 of Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1994 will not be applicable in the present case in view of the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) and Sub-Sec tion) of Section 11 of the Act, which clear ly express contrary intention that the period of tenure of the Vice- Chancellor shall be three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Section 11 (2) of the Act is not subject to pleasure of Vice-Chancellor. The term of three years provided therein is a condition of service which cannot be changed after appoint ment, a provided under Sub-Section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The provisions of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act are clearly excluded. It has also been submitted that the alleged enquiry directed against petitioner is wholly futile exercise as petitioner cannot be dismissed from service until he completes the period of three years. Learned counsel has also assailed the appointment of respondent No. 2 under Sec tion 11 (6) (a) of the Act on the ground that there is no vacancy and the respondent No. 2 cannot be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Learned counsel has also submitted that if petitioner has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor and if he is not permitted to work, it is highly improper and the orders cannot be sustained merely on the ground that the pay and emoluments of petitioner have not been effected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in cases of PK. Chinnasamy v. . Government of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 78, Professor Pratima Asthana v. Chan cellor, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and others, reported in (1991) 1 U. P. L. B. E. C. 448 (D. B.)and Professor B. S. Rajput v. Chan cellor and another, reported in (1995)2 UPLBEC 818 (D. B ). Sri Vijaya Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, in reply, submitted that the power to appoint includes power to suspend, dismiss, remove or otherwise terminate the tenure of the office of the person appointed, by virtue of Section 16 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 and the order of suspension is fully justified. The order does not curtail pay and emoluments or any other benefit of the petitioner. By the impugned order only his activities have been brought to an end. During period of enquiry it could be prejudicial to the interest of the University and the enquiry. Learned counsel has sub mitted that there is no provision in the Act or the statute indicating the contrary inten tion that Section 16 of the U. P. General Clauses Act will not be applicable in the present case. Learned counsel has sub mitted that under C1. (a) of Section 11 (6) of the Act, respondent No. 2 could be ap pointed as petitioner is incapable of functioning as Vice-Chancellor in view of the order passed against him during pen dency of the enquiry, this situation shall be covered by the Phrase 'any cause' and the appointment is perfectly legal and justified. Learned counsel has submitted that con sidering seriousness of the charges the Chancellor had no option but to suspend the petitioner. It has been further submitted that Section 11 (6) of the Act provides three circumstances out of which clause (a) will apply to cases of suspension. The Statute has only fixed outer limit of the term of office at the time of appointment, Learned counsel has also submitted that the office of Vice-Chancellor is very high and respected office and if the person appointed in such office, acts in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the University, he can be suspended. It can not be the intention of the law that he should be continued in office irrespective of the charges alleged against him. Learned counsel has placed reliance in cases of Acharya Prabhakar Mishra v. The Chancellor and another, reported in A. I. R. 1972, Pat 393, The Vice Chancellor, Jammu University and another v. Dushinant Kumar Rampal, reported in A. I. R. 1977s. C. , 1146, Dr. Boolchand v. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, reported in A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 292, Mis Heckett Engineering Co. v. Their Workmen, reported in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 2257, Pradyat Kumar Base v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court reported in A. I. R. 1956 S. C, 285, Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and ors. , reported in J. T. 1996 (3) S. C. 96, : 1996 (2) LBESR 263 (SC), Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasah; reported in. T. 1996 (3) S. C. 202 : 1996 (2) LBESR 262 (SC), U. P. Rajya Ktishi Utapadan Mandi Parishad and Ors. v. Saniv Rajan, reported in J. T. 1993 (2) S. C. 550, Professor B. S. Rajput-v. Chancellor and another, reported in (1995)2 UPLBEC 818.
(3.) SRI Ramesh Upadhyay, holding brief of SRI S. N. Upadhyaya, appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that in case of Professor Pratima Asthana v. Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and others, reported in (1991)1 UPLBEC 448, the order of suspension was quashed on the ground of delay in enquiry and was under the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act 1973. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distin guishable. It has also been submitted that in case tenure is fixed, it does not amount to express contrary intention so as to exclude the provisions of Section 16 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. The order of suspen sion by respondent No. 1 is perfectly jus tified in the facts and circumstances of the case and it does not suffer from any error of law. It has been submitted that interference by this court under Article 226 of the Con stitution at this stage will not be in the interest of the University. I have seriously considered the sub mission of the learned counsel for the par ties. Learned counsel for the parties though have referred to certain charges during ar guments but the main thrust through out the arguments was about the question of the authority on the part of the Chancellor to dismiss and suspend the Vice-Chancellor after appointmentand further as the en quiry is pending, it does not appear neces sary to discuss the charges which have been mentioned in the impugned order. The ap pointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University is provided u/s. 11 of the Act. As controversy which is subject matter of this writ petition, is about interpretation of various provisions of S. 11 of the Act, the relevant portion of it is being reproduced below for better appreciation:- "11 (1)-The (Kulpati) shall be a whole-time officer of the University. The First (Kulpati)-after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (Sanshodhan) Ad-hyadesh, 1966, shall be appointed by the (Kulad hipati ). The subsequent (Kulpati) shall be ap pointed by the (Kuladhipati) out of a panel of three persons nominated by a committe consisting of a representative of the Board chosen in the prescribed manner and two other. members ap pointed by the State Government. (2) The term of office of the (Kulpati) shall be three years. (4) The employments and other conditions of service of (Kulpati) shall be such as may be prescribed and shall not be varied to his disad vantage appointment. (6) In any of the following circumstances (of the existence of which the Kuladhipati (Chancel lor) shall be the sole Judge) the Kuladhipati (Cha ncellor) may appoint any suitable person to the office of the Kulpati (Vice-Chancellor) for such term not exceeding six months as he may specify. (a) Where a vacancy in the office of the Kulpati (Vice-chancellor) occurs or is likely to occur by reason of leave or any cause not being expiry of term. (b) Where a vacancy in the office of the Kulapti (Vice-chancellor) occurs and it cannot be conveniently and expeditiously filled in. (c) Any other emergency. Provided that the Chancellor (Kuladhipati) may from time to time extend the term of appoint ment of any person to the office of the Kulpati (Vice-Chancellor) under this sub-section, so how ever, that the total term of such appointment (including the term, fixed in the original order) does not exceed one year. ";