R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) THE Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, was constituted by the Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1961. (The Punjab Agricultural University will hereinafter be referred to as the 'University' and the Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1961, will hereinafter be referred to as '1961 Act'). Dr. Verman, writ -Petitioner (now Respondent in the present L.P.A.) had attained distinction in the field of Veterinary Physiology. He was appointed as Professor of Veterinary Physiology in the University by the Vice -Chancellor of the University, - -vide order dated 14th December, 1971, a copy of which has, been attached as Annexure R -2 with the written statement of the University. Dr. Verman was served with a Memorandum of charge -sheet alongwith the statement of allegations on 30th September, 1982 (Annexure P -3). The reply of Dr. Verman having not been found satisfactory, a regular departmental enquiry was held and after complying with the provisions of the Statutes for taking disciplinary action, Dr. Verman was removed from the service, - -vide order dated 28th September, 1984, passed by the Vice -Chancellor, (a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P -8 with the writ petition). The Respondent -writ -Petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Management of the University against his removal, but the same was rejected on 14th January, 1985, - -vide order copy of which has been attached as Annexure P -11. Representation to the Chancellor of the University against the order of the Board of Management, was also filed. After granting personal hearing to Dr. Verman by the Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, his appeal -cum -representation was rejected, - -vide communication dated 12th April, 1987 (Annexure P -15). Dr. Verman challenged by way of writ petition the order of his removal from service dated 28th September, 1984 (Annexure P -8), the appellate order of the Board of Management dated 14th January, 1985 (Annexure P -11) as also the order of the Chancellor rejecting his appeal -cum -representation dated 12th April, 1987 (Annexure P -15). The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the above -said orders. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the University has come up in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) THREE points were raised on behalf of the writ -Petitioner before the learned Single Judge, which found favour with him. These were: 1. The Appointing Authority of the Petitioner being the Board of Management, therefore, the Vice -Chancellor had no jurisdiction to order removal of the Petitioner from service; 2. The decision of the Board of Management was vitiated because the Vice -Chancellor had presided over the meeting of the Board of Management at the time the Petitioner's appeal was considered; and The punishment awarded to the writ Petitioner was totally disproportionate to the gravity of the charges against the Petitioner. 3. The learned Single Judge held on the first point that it was the Board of Management, which was the appointing Authority of the writ Petitioner, and, therefore, the Vice -Chancellor had no jurisdiction to order his removal and, consequently, the order of removal was bad in law. As far as the second point was concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the proceedings of the Board of Management were vitiated when" it considered the appeal of the writ -Petitioner, inasmuch as the Vice -Chancellor who had ordered the removal of the writ -Petitioner, had presided over the proceedings of the meeting and as such had taken part in the same. On the third point, the learned Single Judge held that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner was wholly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges against the Petitioner.
(3.) MR . H. L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the University -Appellant, contended that according to the statutes of the University, the Vice -Chancellor was the appointing Authority of the writ -Petitioner (now Respondent) and in fact, it was the Vice -Chancellor who had appointed him as is clear from the appointment letter dated 14th December, 1971 (Annexure R -2 with the written statement). He further submitted that on facts also the Vice -Chancellor having appointed the writ -Petitioner and he having accepted the appointment as far back as 1971, was estopped from raising the point that the Vice -Chancellor was not the appointing Authority. On the aspect that the proceedings of the Board of Management were vitiated when the matter regarding the appeal of Dr. Verman was considered by it, as the Vice -Chancellor who had passed the order of removal and taken part in the proceedings, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the matter should have been referred back to the Board of Management by the learned Single Judge to be reconsidered in the absence of the Vice -Chancellor. As far as the third point regarding the quantum of punishment was concerned, the learned Counsel contended that the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no jurisdiction to go into the quantum of punishment. Mr. J. L. Gupta, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for Dr. Verman, on the other hand, reiterated the same submissions which had found favour with the learned Single Judge.;