- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 15-3-1997 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition) constituting the Enquiry Commit tee against the petitioner and letter dated 27-3-1997 to appear before the Enquiry Committee.
(2.) DEV Nagri Post Graduate College, Meerut ( here in after referred to as the Col lege) is affiliated to Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. A Committee of Management manages and controls the af fairs of the College. Dr. P. C. Pachauri was Principal of the College. The petitioner suspended him on the charges of financial irregularities, misconduct and mismanage ment. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. It appears com plaint was made to the Vice- Chancellor, Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut against the conduct of the Commit tee of Management of the College. The Vice Chancellor constituted an Enquiry Com mittee to make enquiry against the conduct and functioning of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a notice to submit its reply by letter dated 27-3- 1997. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 1 constituting the Enquiry Committee dated 15-3-1997 and show cause notice dated 27-3-1997. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, con tended that the Vice-Chancellor has no jurisdiction under Section 13 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short the Act) to constitute any enquiry committee to make an enquiry against the Committee of Management of the College. Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Sec tion 13 of the Act provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall supervise and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and as sociated colleges. This provision vests in the Vice-Chancellor to exercise the general su pervisory power and control all the affairs of the college. In exercise of such power, the Vice- Chancellor has power to make enquiry in the affairs of a college himself or to ap point a committee to make an enquiry and such committee is to submit a report to the Vice-Chancellor. It is not necessary that an opportunity of hearing is to be given by the Vice-Chancellor before constituting an en quiry committee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that such power can be exercised by the State Government only under Sec tion 57 of the State Universities Act. Sec tion 57 of the State Universities Act em powers the State Government to issue notice and take action against the Committee of Management when it has committed any default in payment of salary, mis management etc. This provision does not take away power of the Vice-Chancellor to supervise or control the affairs of the Com mittee of Management of the Colleges.
(3.) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Vice-Chancellor has in fact exercised this power only to pressurise the Committee of Management not tc continue with the dis ciplinary proceedings against Dr. P. C. Pachauri, respondent No. 3. It has not been shown that the Vice-Chancellor is acting mala fide. THEre is no material to establish that the Vice-Chancellor or any member of the Committee which has been constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, is any way either related to respondent No. 3 or otherwise interested in him. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Com mittee has asked for various documents from the petitioner by letter dated 1st April, 1997 which in fact are required by the petitioner for making enquiry against respondent No. 3. It is open to the petitioner to submit reply to the Committee that the document directed to be produced from it, are required by it for the purpose of making enquiry against respondent No. 3. It can submit photostat copies of those docu ments along with original documents. There is no reason that the Committee, if the pho tostat copies of the relevant documents are submitted, shall not return the original documents after getting examined the original documents with photostat copies. The petitioner can made a representation to this effect.;