Jaishree Thakur, J. - (1.) Challenge to the writ petition is against the impugned suspension order dated 8.10.2014(Annex. -8) passed by the respondent -Registrar as well as to the appointment of Enquiry Officer (Annex. -10), impugned Enquiry Report dated 3.2.2015 (Annex. -12) and the impugned charge -sheet dated 30.3.2015 (Annex. -13) issued by the Vice Chancellor.
(2.) The petitioner was working on the post of U.D.C. with the respondent -University and was made in -charge of the Guest House at Udaipur. The respondent -Registrar, by an order dated 8.10.2014, placed the petitioner under suspension alleging that he had committed several irregularities during the tenure of being in -charge of the Guest House. Aggrieved against the order dated 8.10.2014, an appeal came to be preferred before the Appellate Authority. The respondent -Vice Chancellor appointed an Enquiry Officer on 3.11.2014. Against the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent -Vice Chancellor to complete the enquiry within a period of seven days. The enquiry was completed and in the Enquiry Report dated 3.2.2015 it was submitted that the petitioner had committed several financial irregularities and indiscipline. On the basis of Enquiry Report submitted, the Vice Chancellor issued a charge -sheet dated 20.3.2015 with a direction to file reply to the charge -sheet. Subsequent thereto, Registrar vide order dated 1.5.2015 directed that 75% of the subsistence allowance be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, made a request for supply of documents and eventually, he was permitted to inspect the record. Aggrieved, that the Enquiry Officer is acting under the instructions of the respondent -Vice Chancellor, the present writ petition has been filed, alleging that the order of suspension dated 8.10.2014 is highly arbitrary as the same does not disclose any allegation against the petitioner. It is also urged that the respondent -Vice Chancellor is not a Disciplinary Authority as per Service Conditions, moreover, he being the appellate authority, a remedy of appeal would be lost.
(3.) Mr. P.S. Bhati with Mr. Sajjan Singh learned counsel for the respondents contend that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on account of the fact that the University -Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidhya Peeth University is not a State or an authority which is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that this Court should not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner.;