- (1.) DR . Kailash Bihari retired on 30.11.2001 from the post of Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi. While in service, he was put under suspension on 16.9.1999 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. By order dated 8.10.1999 an Advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The delinquent filed representation dated 27.11.1999 challenging appointment of an Advocate as the Enquiry Officer, but the same was not considered. Hence, he filed CWJC No. 20 of 2000 (R) in this Court challenging the jurisdiction and powers of the Vice -Chancellor, who has suspended him. According to him, such power was vested with the Board of Governors of the Institute. It was alleged that action of the Vice -Chancellor was mala fide.
(2.) THE learned single Judge by impugned order dated 29.11.2001 disposed of the writ application holding that the Vice -Chancellor had jurisdiction to place the appellant under suspension and, therefore, his suspension order was not illegal. 1997 (2) SCC 708. It was held that Viee -Chancellor had jurisdiction to frame charges and initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant. However, the appointment of an Advocate as Enquiry Officer was set aside and the Institute was directed to proceed further in the departmental enquiry by appointing departmental person as the Enquiry Officer. Since the appellant was under suspension for more than two years and was also to superannuate on and from 30.11.2001, his order of suspension was revoked in the interest of justice and the respondents were directed to proceed and continue the departmental proceeding, if permissible after his retirement, under the law.
(3.) MR . Sohail Anwar. Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the: Board of Governors being the appointing authority in the case of the appellant, the departmental proceeding could not have been initiated only by the Vice - Chancellor. It was further submitted that instead of revoking the order of suspension from 29.11.2001, on which date the Writ application was disposed of, it ought to have been revoked from 16.9.1999 itself, on which elate it was passed by the Vice Chancellor. It was further submitted that the Vice - Chancellors action against the appellant was mala fide.;