K.S.TIWANA, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Dr. K.N. Garg Director-Principal (under suspension) of Medical College, Rohtak, tier quashing the orders of his suspension passed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council of the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the Executive Council)
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he entered service in the erstwhile State of Pepsu as demonstrator in Pharmacology in the year 1955. In 1956, on the merger of the State of Pepsu with Punjab he was integrated in the State of Punjab and was appointed on 15th of May, 1962, as Head of the Department of Pharmacology in the Medical College at Amritsar. On the further reorganisation of the State in 1966, he was allocated to the State of Haryana as Professor and Head of the Department of the Pharmacology and his pay, allowances and promotion were guaranteed under section 82 of the States Re-organization Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, he had a brilliant academic record and attained eminence and recognition in the field of speciality in India and abroad by research and publication of papers His service record also is unblemished. He was, by virtue of his seniority, promoted as Director-Principal of the Medical College, Rohtak, with effect from 20th of January, 1975. He worked on that post till 6th of December, 1976, when during the emergency he had to resign from the additional charge of Director-Principal under duress. That resignation was considered as withdrawn by the Executive Council of the M.D. University, hereinafter referred to as the University, on 15th of October, 1977 and he again took over as Director-Principal in addition to his own duties as a Professor of Pharmacology. The petitioner alleges that because of the instances given in para 7 of the petition, he incurred the displeasure of the present Vice-Chancellor of the University, who became biased against him. Because of that malice, the Vice-Chancellor suspended him under statute 4(4) of the University, when there was no emergency to take an urgent action under this provision, nor any reason for invoking this provision was recorded in the suspension order. The charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on dates subsequent to the suspension. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Executive Council of the University and requested the Vice-Chancellor to stay further proceedings till the decision of his appeal. He was not given an opportunity to examine the relevant records and was not provided with attested copies of the documents and the statements of the witnesses in spite of the representations made. A few unattested copies were, however, given to him. A supplementary appeal was sent to the Executive Council on 3rd of May, 1978. A meeting of the Executive Council was held at Chandigarh on 6th of May, 1978 and on its agenda at No 2 was the item to approve the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under statute 4(4) fur suspending the petitioner. There was no item in the agenda for consideration of his appeal. The minutes of the Executive Council meeting showed that it did not consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and without recording any finding on it, the Executive Council approved the action of the Vice-Chancellor in suspending him. This action of the Executive Council was conveyed to him by the Registrar of the University, vide letter dated 9th of Mar, 1978 and also the constitution of a Committee consisting of (1) Dr. Santokh Singh Anand ; (2) Dr. Vikas Mishra and (3) Mr. A. Banerjee, for holding an enquiry against him.
(3.) The petitioner made allegations of bias against Dr. S.S. Anand, who was the Principal of Medical College at Amritsar at one time, when the petitioner was a Professor of Pharmacology. He stated that one of the sons of Dr. S.S. Anand was studying in that College and was to appear in the M.B.B.S. Examination the petitioner was the internal Examiner. Dr. S.S. Anand approached him to award his son first class marks, to which the petitioner did not agree, as the son of Dr. S.S. Anand was an average student. Because of this Dr. S.S. Anand became antagonised towards him and threatened to deal with him, whenever the occasion came in his way. From this the petitioner has an apprehension that Dr S.S. Anand may not be able to act in a just and impartial manner in the enquiry against him.;