AGARWAL, CJ. - (1.) THIS special appeal, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed by Dr. Hari Gyan Singh challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding his suspension order dated 5. 10. 1992.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are these. The appellant was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner on 20. 4. 1991 for a period of three years from the date of his taking over charge. During his term as Vice-Chancellor, a number of complaints regarding favouritism in the selection of teachers, large scale transfers of the staff members in arbitrary manner, manipulation in the records pertaining to the University bodies and misuse of Doordarshan were received by the Chancellor. By the letter dated 20. 4. 1992, the Secretary to Chancellor informed the appellant about proposed initiation of enquiry against him under section-9 of the Rajasthan Agriculture University Act (briefly stated 'the Act' ). The appellant was called upon to submit his explanation within two weeks. In his explanation, the appellant denied the charges and asserted that he had neither misused his position as the Vice- Chancellor nor he was guilty of having made illegal appointments or transfers. All other charges made against him were also denied as incorrect and wrong. The Chancellor appointed Sh. Mangal Behari, IAS (Retired) as 'one man commission' and directed him to investigate the complaints which were received against the appellant. The Commission was directed to submit its report within a period of three months. Subsequently, on 5. 10. 1992 the respondent No. 2 suspended the appellant on the view that the complaints and charges against him were grave in nature. By the said order, the Chancellor appointed Sh. Rakesh Hooja, IAS Area Development Commissioner to function as Vice-Chancellor on stop gap arrangement. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant argued four points which have been mentioned at page 3 of the judgment. Those very four points were repeated before us in the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant laid special emphasize on the submissions one and two urged before the learned Single Judge. Under these submissions, the learned counsel urged that the Chancellor had no power either to suspend the appellant or to initiate enquiry against him. The review of the various provisions of the Act would indicate that none of the two submissions has any merit.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the Vice-Chancellor is appointed on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and also on the advise of the State Government, the Appointing Authority could not be the Chancellor. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act negatived the submission of the appellant's counsel, inasmuch as, the power to appoint a Vice- Chancellor has been given to the Chancellor. THErefore, the submission of the appellant's counsel is not acceptable. The next submission of the appellant's counsel was that the proceedings initiated against the appellant under section-9 of the Act was illegal, inasmuch as, the power to order inspection or enquiry conferred' by Section-9 of the Act is of a different nature and for a different purpose, hence, the initiation order by the Chancellor was illegal being not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Sec. 9 of the Act empowers the Chancellor to get an inspection made and enquiry conducted in respect of any of the matters connected with the administrative or the finances of the University. The power conferred is of a wide nature and in exercise of that power, the Chancellor could appoint one man commission for locating the fault and identifying the Officer who was liable for the same. Section-9 of the Act has to be construed in a manner that satisfied its purpose. Strait jacket and narrow interpretation of this Section would defeat the very object and purpose of framing it. The Chancellor has been conferred power by this Section being overall incharge of the Rajasthan Agriculture University. We may refer to Section 18 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 which lays down, that power to appoint to include power to suspend, remove or dismiss. It is well understood proposition of law that suspension is not punitive. That being so, the legislature has not laid down any guideline for passing an order of suspension. It is understood by all concern that the suspension pending enquiry is for a temporary period to enable the Enquiry Officer to consider the papers brought before him and, thereafter, to submit report to the Appointing Authority. ;