A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) -The petitioner is a professor in the Department of Psychology in the Aligarh Muslim University and was, at the relevant time, the Chairman of the Department. By means of this petition he has assailed the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Authority, Sri M. K. Vasudevan, the respondent no. 4, to hold and proceed with the enquiry which has been initiated against him. The relief claimed is that the order dated 12-6-86 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University appointing Sri M. K. Vasudevan, formerly Commissioner for the Department of Enquiries, Central Vigilence Commission, as the Enquiry Authority to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner be quashed.
(2.) THE sole ground of challenge to the impugned order dated 12-6-86 is that the power to appoint the Enquiry Authority vests exclusively under Statute 40 (3) (c) in the Executive Council and not in the Vice Chancellor and, consequently, the impugned order is a complete nullity. In order to appreciate the submissions made at the Bar, it will be necessary to set out the essential facts. On 13-5-86 the Vice Chancellor communicated to the petitioner his letter dated 12/13-5-86 enclosing therewith the substance of imputations of misconduct in respect of which an enquiry was proposed against the petitioner, a statement of imputations of misconduct in support of the article of charges as well as a list of witnesses and documents with the help of which the article of charges was proposed to be sustained. The letter stated that an enquiry was proposed against the petitioner under Statute 40 (3) (c) of the Statutes of the University. In response to this the petitioner by his letter dated 15 - 5-86 sought arbitration of the dispute under section 36 (2) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act. The petitioner also replied to the charges by his letter dated 15-5-86. On 16-5-86 the petitioner sent representation to the Prime Minister with a copy thereof to the Vice Chancellor. Thereupon the Vice Chancellor by his order dated 17-5 -86 suspended the petitioner under Statute 40 (3) (c) of the Statutes. Then followed the impugned order dated 12-6-86 passed by the Vice Chancellor appointing Sri M. K. Vasudevan as Enquiry Authority to enquire into the charges against the petitioner mentioned in the memorandum dated 13-5-86. Sri Vasudevan acting on this letter fixed certain dates in July, August and September, 1986 for holding the enquiry. The petitioner applied for and was granted adjournment of the proceedings and while the same were pending, presented this petition on 25-9-86. An interim order was granted the same day to the effect that the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall go on but the petitioner's services shall not be terminated till further orders of this Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University the various allegations of malafide made by the petitioner against the Vice Chancellor have been emphatically denied as completely false and baseless. Briefly, the stand taken by the University is that the facts and circumstances of the case were such as warranted immediately action against the petitioner. Consequently, the Vice Chancellor invoked the emergency powers vested in him under section 19 (3) of the aforesaid Act and in the very first meeting of the Executive Council held after the Vice Chancellor's order dated 12-6-86 the matter was placed before the Executive Council which approved the action taken by the Vice Chancellor. The action taken against the petitioner, it is asserted, is in consonance with the Statute 40 (3) (c).
(3.) WE begin with section 19 (3) of the Act and Statute 40 (3) (c) of the Statutes of the University around which the submissions at the Bar were centered. The same are extracted here : "19 (3). The Vice Chancellor may, if he is of opinion that immediate action is necessary on any matter, exercise any power conferred on any authority of the University by or under this Act and shall report to such authority the action taken by him on such matter, Provided that if the authority concerned is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it may refer the matter to the visitor whose decision thereon shall be final, Provided further that any person in the service of the University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice Chancellor under this sub section shall have the right to appeal against such action to the Executive Council within three months from the date on which decision on such action is communicated to him and thereupon the Executive Council may confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice Chancellor." "40 (3) (c). The Vice Chancellor may suspend a teacher against whom any misconduct is alleged and shall report the case to the next meeting of the Executive Council, but before any orders for dismissal are passed, the teacher shall be informed of the allegations made against him and shall be given a "* reasonable opportunity to make such representation to the Executive Council or to any Committee thereof appointed for the purpose, as be may desire to make ; and further, he shall be entitled to claim the benefit of due enquiry, with full opportunity to inspect evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and offer his own evidence and witnesses, before the Executive Council or before a person or persons appointed by it to conduct the enquiry." The main contention raised by Sri Murli Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Vice Chancellor clearly acted in excess of his jurisdiction in invoking the emergency powers under section 19 (3) inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, there did not exist any such emergency as to justify recourse to that provision.;