- (1.) The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Jodhpur and had been conducting the cases of the respondent Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (here-in-after referred to as the University).
(2.) It is stated that the petitioner was approached by the University for conducting the cases in the High Court which the petitioner successfully conducted and the decisions were even upheld upto the Supreme Court. The petitioner submits that because of his being very busy lawyer, he had very clearly informed the University that he will only be able to do the important cases and that also on the terms and conditions to be negotiated. The Registrar of the University had persuaded the petitioner to conduct the cases with minimum fee of Rs. 5500.00 per case but if the nature of the cases so requires, or more complicated points are involved, the fee shall go right upto Rs. 11,000.00 to Rs. 15,000.00 per case. This understanding was agreed to and the petitioner was actually paid fee for some of the cases at the rate of Rs.11,000.00 as is clear from Annexure-1; the sanction of the University for conducting for the cases and payment of Rs. 44,000.00 for the said four cases. The then Vice Chancellor had relinquished the charge. The petitioner submits that certain members of the Syndicate who were wanting that certain cases of teachers to be decided to a particular direction to which the University otherwise was opposing and ultimately the teachers had lost the case, it had annoyed certain members of the Syndicate as those cases were conducted by the petitioner and to avenge for this, the Syndicate members started working against the petitioner. The situation came to surface when for conducting 10 cases, the petitioner had submited a fee bill of Rs. 55,000.00 @ Rs. 5500.00 and even a sanction was also accorded and the cheque had also been prepared in favour of the petitioner for the said amount but before the cheque could be delivered and encashed, on the initiation of one Dr. Gulab Singh Chouhan, a member of the Syndicate in a meeting held on 28-3-1999 had taken up the matter that the fee being paid to the advocate is at higher side. The Vice chancellor Dr. Laxman Singh Rathore is said to have succumbed to the pressure built up by a group of the leaders of the Teachers Association and without applying his mind to the fact that the payment was duly sanctioned and cheque had already been prepared in the name of the petitioner, had issued necessary direction to the Accounts Sections not to hand over the cheque to the petitioner even though the amount stood duly sanctioned by his predecessor in office. According to the petitioner all this was being done to settle scores with earlier Vice Chancellor Shri Shyam Lal Jedia. The Syndicae vide its resolution No. 3/99 had decided to constitute a committee in this regard and three meetings were held in may 1999 itself. Part of resolution No. 3 is reproduced as under : After going into the facts as stated above from the file, the committee desired that details of all cases handled by Shri Joshi be made available along with details of payment. The Finance Officer has supplied the summary of payment made to Shri Joshi vide note No. 811 dated 5-5-99 (photo copy enclosed).Further, when the details of summary were examined, it revealed that shri Joshi has been paid @ Rs. 11,000.00 per case in five cases (including four similar cases). Further Shri Joshi has been paid Rs. 11,000.00 for conference with Lawyer of the Supreme Court for contesting SLP filed by Shri Shishupal Singh and VirendraTater. In the rest of the cases, payment has been made to him @ Rs. 5500.00 each case even though there were eight similar cases. As per the decision of the Syndicate whenever a Lawyer is to be engaged out of panel or on different scale of remuneration, then the Syndicate's prior approval is necessary. Therefore, it is quite clear that Mr. Joshi was engaged without prior approval of the syndicate and on much higher rates of remuneration in comparison to the rate of Rs. 2500.00 per case approved by the Syndicate. The suggestions of the Lawyer on higher rates of remuneration was also not reported to the Syndicate for approval till date. Further, Rs. 11,000.00 per case was paid to Mr. Joshi in five cases over and above his negotiated rates of Rs. 55,000.00 per case. The comittee has also come across an order of the Govt. of Rajasthan No. File A5/24/Raj/Case/91 dated 9-3-99 wherein the payable fee of the Lawyer in similar cases is lower than the fixed fee as per case. The Committee concludes that Mr. Joshi was engaged without the authority and approval of the Syndicate and payments made to him were very excessive and not in order bypassing the authority of the Syndicate.
(3.) The petiioner had been giving notices for payment of the amount but without any result.;