- (1.) In this proceeding, the petitioner, who is the Registrar of North Bengal University, (the university) challenges the legality of an order issued by the ViceChancellor of the University of North Bengal suspending him in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. The order of suspension was passed on 30th March 2010. A copy of this order has been annexed to the writ petition, marked "P16". This order provides: "Whereas Dr. Dilip Kumar Sarkar present Registrar, University of North Bengal who had worked as Controller of Examinations, University of North Bengal during the period from 1.7.2000 to 26.11.2007, was the sole authority designated for operating the Confidential bank Account No. 10195737296 maintained with State Bank of India, NBU Campus Branch in the name and style "Controller of Examinations, North Bengal University" and Whereas it is evident from the reports of the Audit & Accounts Officer, University of North Bengal, dated 31.10.2008, M/S. Mitra, Roy & Dutta, a firm of Chartered Accountants dated 12.2.2009 and Mr. Arun Kumar Das, ICAS (Retd.) dated 7.11.2009 that huge amount of money in the aforesaid bank account "Controller of Examinations, North Bengal University" have been irregularly spent causing thereby a huge loss to University Fund and Whereas an FIR has been lodged bearing Case no. 67/2010 dated 30.3.2010 and G.D. no. 2055/10 dated 30.3.2010 with the Matigara Police Station for investigation into the matter of misspending the huge amount of money of the University Fund out of the aforesaid Bank Account, which was solely operated by Dr. Dilip Kumar Sarkar, in his official capacity during the aforesaid period from 1.7.2000 to 27.11.2007 and thereby causing wrongful loss to University of North Bengal and which involves criminal breach of trust as a public servant and Whereas in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against Dr. Dilip Kumar Sarkar, for allegedly committing grievous misconduct relatable to the findings and conclusions of the aforesaid three reports and Whereas in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under North Bengal University Act, 1981, Dr. Dilip Kumar Sarkar, Registrar is hereby placed under suspension in terms of Clause 27 of the University Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1975, with immediate effect and During the period of suspension Dr. Dilip Kumar Sarkar will be entitled to get subsistence grant and other allowances in terms of the aforesaid Service Rules."
(2.) This order has been challenged mainly on the ground of non-application of mind and non-disclosure of reasons. The order of suspension records that the impugned order was passed in terms of Clause 27 of the University Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1975. The said clause empowers the appointing authority or any authority empowered by the Executive Council of the University to place any employee of the university under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding or departmental enquiry against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor (respondent no. 3) to exercise power under Rule 27 was questioned on behalf of the petitioner. In course of hearing, Mr. Sengupta learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in respect of Registrar of the University, it was the Executive Council who were the appointing authority and there was no authorisation or delegation of power to the respondent no. 3 as per the said to enable him to exercise power under the said Rule. This issue was examined by this Court at the time of consideration of the petitioner's case for interim order, when learned Counsel for the respondents 4 submitted that source of such power could be traced to Section 10(6) of the North Bengal University Act, 1981 (the Act). Mr. Saktinath Mukhopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents however has submitted at the final stage of hearing of this case that the impugned order was issued in terms of Section 10(6) of the Act, 1981. In this judgment, I shall accordingly test the legality of the order treating the same to be an order issued under Section 10(6) of the Act. The mere fact that in the order itself it has been recorded that the same was being passed under Rule 27 would not per se vitiate the order if the power or jurisdiction to pass such order can be traced to any other provision of law.
(3.) Section 10 of the Act deals with powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor and sub-section (6) of Section 10 vests in such authority certain emergency powers. This provision stipulates:- "The Vice-Chancellor may take on behalf of the University such action as he may deem expedient in any matter which, in his opinion, is either urgent or of an emergent nature and shall report the same for confirmation at the next meeting of the authority or body 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 or body concerned, the matter shall immediately be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final.";