B. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 16th July, 2005 passed by the Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi as well as the enquiry report dated 2nd June, 2005 submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
(2.) THE petitioner was at the relevant time functioning as the Vice-Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'university') which was established under the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). This was his second tenure of three years and was in continuity of his earlier tenure from 1999 to 2002 and was to come to an end on 31st July, 2005 but the Chancellor of the University by the order dated 16th July, 2005 purporting to exercise his powers under Section 12 (12) of the Act removed the petitioner. The said removal order was preceded by issuance of a show cause notice dated 24th June, 2005 issued by the Chancellor of the University whereby the petitioner was required to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 12 (12) of the Act on the basis of the enquiry report which was enclosed with the said notice. This enquiry report dated 2nd June, 2005 had been submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi pursuant to the directions issued by the State Government under Section 8 (1) of the Act. Sri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Sri Shailendra, Shri G. K. Singh and Ms. Neela Gokhale submitted that the order for removal of the Vice-Chancellor could be passed by the Chancellor of the University under Section 12 (12) of the Act only after complying with the requirements set forth in the sub-section but in complete defiance of the aforesaid provisions and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Chancellor of the University passed the impugned order for removal of the Vice- Chancellor. Elaborating his submissions, he contended that the Chancellor could pass an order under Section 12 (12) of the Act only after making such enquiry as he deemed proper, if in his opinion the Vice-Chancellor wilfully omitted or refused to carry out the provisions of the Act or abused the powers vested in him or if it otherwise appeared to him that the continuance of the Vice- Chancellor in office was detrimental to the interest of the University. In the present case merely a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi to the State Government under Section 8 (1) of the Act was forwarded to the petitioner enabling him to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why he should not be removed from office. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it was passed in breach of the provisions of Section 12 (12) of the Act and in the breach of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that earlier also complaints were made against the petitioner during his earlier tenure from 1999 to 2002 as Vice-Chancellor of the University which were inquired into and rejected as were found to be false and baseless. However, subsequently similar complaints were again entertained in the year 2004 regarding the issues which had already been inquired into and it is on the basis of these complaints order impugned has been passed. He, therefore, submitted that it was not permissible for the Chancellor to rely upon the said report submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi on stale allegations and take action against the petitioner for his removal in hot haste on 16th July, 2005 as his term was, in any case, going to expire on 31st July, 2005. The Chancellor passed the impugned order for malice against the petitioner. The Chancellor wrote letters to the Prime Minister and other Ministers against the petitioner during the pendency of enquiry on 12-5-2005 and again on 20-7- 2005 (Annex. 2 to the supplementary affidavit) after removal. In the subsequent letter in the last part, i. e. para 6, the Chancellor informed the Prime Minister and Hon'ble Law Minister that petitioner was a Dalit and had been very active in cultivating Dalit leaders in Delhi which was unwarranted and uncalled for on his part. Petitioner submitted the resignation on 16-7-2005, which was not accepted for the reason that the Chancellor was determined to remove the petitioner. The allegations/charges, which stood proved, even if for the sake of argument, are accepted, did not warrant removal of the petitioner. The order impugned is liable to be quashed. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Chancellor of the University, however, submitted that there is no particular procedure provided under Section 12 (12) of the Act for removal of the Vice-Chancellor of the University and wide discretion has been given to the Chancellor of the University to pass an order after making such enquiry as he deemed proper and, therefore, no infirmity can be attached to the order if the Chancellor of the University thought it proper to merely enclose a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi under Section 8 (1) of the Act and call for an explanation from the petitioner within 15 days. His contention, therefore, is that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and no prejudice was caused to him on account of failure to hold a regular enquiry after issuance of a charge-sheet. He further submitted that it was permissible to the Chancellor of the University to take cognizance of the complaints relating to his previous tenure as Vice-Chancellor of the University. Complaints received by the Chancellor directly had also been forwarded to the Inquiry Officer appointed by the State Government under Section 8 (1) of the Act. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order.
(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. However, before we proceed to consider the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we consider it necessary to take a quick glance of the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the 'officers' of the University. The Vice-Chancellor is an Officer of the University under Section 9 of the Act and Section 12 of the Act which deals with the Vice-Chancellor provides that he shall be a whole time salaried Officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor and shall hold office for a term of three years from the date he enters in the office. The emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor are determined by the State Government. Section 12 (12) of the Act which deals with the removal of the Vice-Chancellor was inserted by the U. P. Act No. 20 of 1994 w. e. f. 15th July, 1994 and is as follows : "if in the opinion of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him, or if it otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of the University, the Chancellor may, after making such inquiry as he deems proper, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor. ";