U.P. Singh, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the notification dated 11.9.1995 (contained in Annexure -9), whereby the Vice -Chancellor in exercise of his emergent power under Section 7 -C(5) of the Banaras Hindu University Act has restrained the petitioner to act as Director of the Institute of Medical Sciences till the submission of the report of the enquiry committee constituted by the University and, further, the decision/proceedings of the Executive Council dated 19.11.1995 on petitioner's appeal (contained in Annexure -20), two fold contentions have been raised by the petitioner's counsel Sri L.P. Naithani, that the petitioner having been appointed on a tenure post for a period of five years could not be restrained from functioning as Director by the Vice -Chancellor even in exercise of his emergency power under Section 7 -C(5) of the Act without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. And, the decision of the Executive Council dated 19.11.1995 taken on the petitioner's appeal also suffered from the same vice and was vitiated because of the presence of the Vice -Chancellor in the meeting of the Executive Council and the Executive Council did not apply its independent mind. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the University Sri Sudhir Chandra contended that since the emergent situation was prevailing in the Institute of Medical Sciences requiring such an action under the emergency provisions of the Act for maintaining the academic standard and administrative discipline in the Institute so that the Institute and the Hospital attached with it, could start functioning, which had remained closed for the last several days to the sufferance of the general public at large, in such an emergent situation immediate action was required to be taken without any delay and, therefore, the Vice -Chancellor was not required to provide opportunity of hearing while exercising his emergent power. In the absence of any allegation of mala fide against the Vice -Chancellor, his presence did not adversely prejudice the Executive Council in taking its decision. The Executive Council had taken note of the memorandum of appeal submitted by the petitioner and was only considering as to whether an emergency was of such a nature that the immediate action was required to be taken by the Vice -Chancellor and the impugned order passed by the Vice -Chancellor did not affect the services of the petitioner except that he was restrained from discharging his function till the submission of the enquiry report on the alleged incident leading to closure of the Institute for a considerable long time.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the rival contention it is necessary to notice the provisions of Section 7 -C(5) of the Act which reads as follows. Sub -section 5 of Section 7 -C runs as follows: If, in the opinion of the Vice -Chancellor, any emergency has arisen which requires immediate action to be taken, the Vice -Chancellor shall take such action as he deems necessary and shall report the same for approval at the next meeting to the authority which, in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter: Provided that, if the action taken by the Vice -Chancellor is not approved by the authority concerned, he may refer the matter to the Visitor, whose decision thereon shall be final: Provided further that, where any such action taken by the Vice -Chancellor affects any person in the service of the University, such person shall be entitled to prefer, within thirty days from the date on which he receives notice of such action, an appeal to the Executive Council. Thus it is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that the Vice -Chancellor has been empowered to take such action as he thinks necessary in an emergent situation requiring immediate and urgent action in the matter. For invoking emergency power, there must be an emergent situation in the opinion of the Vice -Chancellor requiring immediate action to be taken. Further, the Vice -Chancellor is required to report to the authority who is competent to deal with the matter in ordinary course, for its approval in the next meeting. In case the authority does not approve the action of the Vice -Chancellor, he can refer the matter to the Visitor whose decision in the matter shall be final. The second proviso contemplates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Vice -Chancellor may prefer an appeal before the Executive Council within a period of 30 days. The power and duties of the Vice -Chancellor has been prescribed in Section 7 -C of the Act. The Vice -Chancellor of the University is the Principal executive and he has been empowered to exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and give effect to the decision of its authority. He is ex -officio Chairman of the Academic Council and Finance Committee. It is his duty to see that the provisions of the Act, Statute, Ordinances and Regulations are duly observed. Sub -section 5 of Section 7 -C further empowers him to take such immediate action in case any emergency has arisen.
(3.) NOW the sequence of events which persuaded the Vice -Chancellor to pass the order in respect of the petitioner may be narrated: Soon after the Vice -Chancellor joined his office on August 2, 1995, the University faced an agitation by Resident Doctors of the Institute of Medical Sciences against the Director Dr. V.N.P. Tripathi, (the petitioner herein) leading to the strike of junior doctors adversely affecting the working of the hospital and the Institute of the Medical Sciences from the mid -night of August 19/20, 1995. The Resident Doctors Association alleged that the Director (the petitioner) refused to discuss and talk to them regarding their problems and while persuading him to talk to them, the President of the Resident Doctors Association was assaulted by the Assistant Public Relation Officer of the Hospital. On the contrary, the petitioner reported about the misbehavior by the members of Resident Doctors Association creating an ugly scene in the office of the Director on August 19, 1995. This was the genesis of the Resident Doctors against the petitioner which, through passage of time and days went on increasing in magnitude disrupting the services of the hospital and the Institute of Medical Sciences. On August 21, 1995, the Vice -Chancellor advised the petitioner to sort out the matter and to ensure an early solution of the matter restoring the early services of the hospital and the Institute back to normal as early as possible. Being quite concerned about the situation the Vice -Chancellor discussed this matter with the petitioner, who surprisingly told the Vice -Chancellor not to take it seriously and not be impatient since he believed that it was a minor agitation confined only for few students and was likely to pass of soon. On the contrary, the agitation turned into a major strike and was joined for the first time also by all the M.B.B.S. students which totally paralysed all the services of the hospital and functioning of the Institute of Medical Sciences. The Resident Doctors and all the students of M.B.B.S. of the Institute of Medical Sciences had only one demand i.e. the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Director, Institute of Medical Sciences. The Vice -Chancellor met the representatives of the Resident Doctors Association singly as also along with the Dean of Students and the Dean, Faculty of Medicines to find out a solution to defuse the crisis and persuade the Resident Doctors to return to their duties. Since the general public and the patients were dying without any medical aid due to closure of the hospital, the pressure was mounting on the Vice -Chancellor from the citizens of Varanasi. One of the prominent lady social workers threatened for self immolation if the hospital services were not brought to normal immediately. The Resident Doctors and the students of the Institute of Medical Sciences had submitted a memorandum with signatures pressing their demand for removal of the petitioner as Director. The Resident Doctors and all the students of the Institute of Medical Sciences also submitted a communication to the Vice -Chancellor containing a number of allegations. Two doctors sat on hunger strike until death on 6.9.1995 from 7 p.m. The Vice -Chancellor visited the site of hunger strike and appealed to the boys not to do it and return to their work. All of them had only one demand i.e. removal of the petitioner from the office of the Director of Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner did not care to meet the boys even once during the whole scenario and abdicated his responsibility as Director of the Institute. The condition of the hunger strikers became worse and as per medical report they were advised to be hospitalized. An effort to take them to the hospital for intravenous feeding in the mid night by the University security staff with the help of the police was marred by the boys and girls coming out of their hostels who did not allow it and it brought the hunger strikers back to the 'dharna' site. Since the conditions of the hunger strikers became grave a few more Resident Doctors and the under graduate medical students also sat on hunger strike till death. All these led to a crisis in the University threatening a serious law and order situation, besides, a real threat to human lives, particularly starving hunger strikers sitting in support of their demand. Meanwhile, the Students Union of the University had also come in support of the demands of the Resident Doctors and the students of the Institute of Medical Sciences. During all this time, the Vice -Chancellor had several times met the Representatives of the Junior Doctors and the Students, convened the University Consultative Committee meetings and also twice met with the in -station members of the Executive Council to discuss and find out the solution to defuse the crisis since it had become a serious threat to the law and order situation and the functions of the University as a whole. The University Consultative Committee on its own accord also sent a delegation of six senior teachers of different faculties to negotiate with the agitating doctors and the students at the site of the hunger strike to find out the solution but then it was reported back to the Vice -Chancellor that agitating M.B.B.S. students, the starving doctors and the students were not prepared for anything less than the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Director of the Institute of Medical Sciences. It is strange that during the whole crisis of events and time, the petitioner kept himself aloof from the scene and never bothered to talk to the Resident Doctors and the students. He did not even think it proper to visit the site of the hunger strikers who became very serious and had kept himself at a distance from the Vice -Chancellor. He neither took any action nor submitted a solution to solve the severe crisis. He remained a silent spectator with the crisis between the students and the doctors on one side and the Vice -Chancellor on the other ignoring his responsibility as Director of Institute. On September 10, 1995 when the District Administration with the help of the police removed these hunger strikers the Administration had to face resistance from the boys and girls of the University, the junior doctors and the students of the Institute of Medical Sciences who tried to prevent the removal of the hunger strikers. The hunger strikers were provided life saving treatment including the intravenous feeding and other medication in order to save their lives. Following this incident there was a large scale demonstration in University by the M.B.B.S. students, the junior doctors of Institute of Medical Sciences, other Institute of the University and the general secretary of the Students Union of the University demanding removal of the petitioner from the office of the Director of Institute of Medical Sciences, failing which some of the students threatened to immolate themselves. The situation had thus exploded to an uncontrollable dimension creating an emergency of the first order to find an immediate solution to defuse the crisis. Still the petitioner being the Director of the Institute kept himself aloof and unmindful of whatever had and have been happening in this regard. In these circumstances in order to defuse the crisis and tackle this emergent situation and to protect the vital interest of the hospital, the Institute of Medical Sciences and the University as a whole, the Vice -Chancellor considered it absolutely necessary to institute an enquiry by a retired High Court Judge to enquire into the matter and in contemplation thereof he ordered the petitioner not to act as Director of the Institute of Medical Sciences till the decision was taken on the enquiry report. Until then, Professor Sri S.K. Sinha, Dean, Faculty of Medicines and the senior most Professor of the Medicines was asked to act as Director of the Institute of the Medical Sciences. The petitioner Dr. V.N.P. Tripathi, of course, was allowed to continue to function as Professor in the department of surgery. Also, simultaneously another order was passed on 11.9.1995 suspending the five junior doctors. It was in this emergent situation faced by the University that it became inevitable for the Vice -Chancellor to take emergent action and his decision under Section 7 -C(5) of the Banaras Hindu University Act was passed on 11th September, 1995 to defuse the crisis. Following this order of 11th September, 1995, the strike and agitation by the junior doctors and the M.B.B.S. students of the Institute of Medical Sciences was called off forthwith on September 12, 1995. The Institute of Medical Sciences and the attached Sir Sunderlal Hospital started functioning normally from September 13, 1995.;