MAHENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Field Overseer (Agronomy Section) in Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Patna, has moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Co. situation of India against the order of the Chancellor of the University dated 24.10.1979 (Annexure1) and the Vice -Chancellor of the University dated 28.6.1979 (Annexure 2) and questioned the validity and legality of his dismissal from service. He has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2. Facts briefly stated, are that the petitioner, on his appointment as a Field Overseer (Agronomy Section) under the University initially served at Araria from where he was transferred to Katihar on 14.9.1977. On inspection of the accounts of the Irrigation Research Section, Araria, certain acts of omission and commission of the petitioner were noticed upon which on 4.11.1977 the Vice Chancellor (the respondent No. 2) issued an order putting him under suspension pending enquiry into the charges. A resolution of the Vice Chancellor of the University dated 27.3.1979 was forwarded to the petitioner by Dr. N.P. Tiwary, Professor and Vice -principal, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, on 2.4.1979, along with a communication requesting him to submit within 15 days of the receipt of the resolution a written statement of defence before him and to state whether he desired to be heard in person and to have witnesses, if any, examined on his behalf. Dr. Tiwary also asked the petitioner to meet him on 26.4.1979 at 11 A.M. in the Chamber of Professor of Botany, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabaur. In the resolution (Annexure 5) the Vice Chancellor stated that the petitioner, who was under suspension, was prima facie guilty of acts of omission and commission as set forth in the charges contained in Annexure -A to the resolution and he accordingly resolved to draw up a regular departmental proceeding against him in the manner prescribed in Rule 167 of the Boards Miscellaneous Rules. Dr. N.P. Tiwary was appointed to enquire into the charges and the petitioner was asked to state before the Inquiry Officer whether he desired to be heard in person and have witnesses, if any, examined on his behalf Charges in four heads alleging misappropriation of Farm -produce, unauthorised occupation of Quarters of the Farm, misbehaviour and misconduct were served upon the petitioner along with the said resolution of the Vice Chancellor and the communication from the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner filed hit written statement of defense (Annexure 7) on 30.5.1979 denying the allegations and furnishing his explanations to the charges. The petitioner, however, did not state that he wanted to be heard in person and/or to examine any witness in his defence. Dr. Tiwary submitted his report to the Vice Chancellor along with his findings. On 28.6.1979 vide Memo No. 3398 (Annexure 2) of the Director, Administration, the petitioner was informed that vide Office Order O.O. 3398/RAV (VC) dated 28.6.1979, the Vice Chancellor dismissed the petitioner from University service with effect from the date of issue of the order. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition before the Vice Chancellor requesting him to furnish the findings of the Conducting Officer of the Departmental Proceedings (Annexure 6) but the same was not given to him. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chancellor of the University. The Chancellor obtained the comments/reports from the Vice Chancellor, but fixed no date for hearing of the appeal. The petitioner filed an application on 15.9.1979 before the Chancellor praying for fixing a date for hearing. The Chancellor, however, rejected the petition of appeal of the petitioner vide Memo No. 3343 -GS(1) Patna dated 24.10.1979 (Annexure 1). The petitioner has, thereafter, come to this Court.

(2.) In the return filed on behalf of the Vice Chancellor of the University, respondent No. 2, and Dr. N.P. Tiwary, Vice Principal, Sabour Agricultural College, Bhagalpur, respondent No. 4 (Inquiry Officer), it has been stated that a number of complaints had been received against the petitioner from -7 employees of the Araria station regarding misbehaviour, misappreciation, misconduct and dereliction of the duty by the petitioner and the University had constituted a Committee of three senior officers, namely, Shitala Prasad Singh, Assistant Biologist, Sri K.S. Asthana, Assistant Oilseed Specialist and Dr. Ram Kumar, Professor of Horticulture to go into the details of irregularities as revealed in the inspection report of the account of the Irrigation Research Institute, Araria, as well as other charges levelled against the petitioner. The said Committee was formed by the University by its resolution No. 8973 dated 9.11.1977. All the 17 members of the staff who had made allegation against the petitioner reiterated their allegations before the said committee in their depositions. Copies of their depositions were sent to the petitioner along with memo of charges and he was asked to file his written statement of defence and to state before the Inquiry Officer whether he desired to be heard in persons and whether he wanted witnesses to be examined in his behalf or not. The petitioner, however, chose only to furnish a written statement without stating anywhere that he intended to examine any witness and/or to cross -examine any witness in support of the charges. The petitioner was shown the relevant records and given full opportunity to defend himself. It is admitted that the petitioner asked for the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, but it is stated that there is no provision to furnish a copy of the findings under the Statutes of the University, as such the same was not supplied to him.

(3.) Before proceeding, however, to consider the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties a bird's eye view of the law on the subject seems desirable. The Rajendra Agricultural University has been established by the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971 (Bihar Act VII of 1971). The Statutes framed as specified in Sec. 35 of the Act were published in the Bihar Government Gazette on 12.7.1976. Rules as to the conduct of the employees of the University, discipline, inquiry, punishment and appeal are provided under Statute 13.9. Penalties divided in two broad heads, namely, minor and major, are prescribed under clause (2) of Statute 13.9. Clauses (3) to (8) of Statute 13.9 contain provisions as to the procedure and other particulars as to the imposition of penalty upon a delinquent servant of the University. Clause (3) to (8) of Statute 13.9, however, were amended vide notification No. 5448 dated 28.12.1978. Clause (3) of Statute 3.9, before amendment, provided - -"the appointing authority shall be competent to impose any of the punishments mentioned in clause (2), provided that no order shall be passed imposing any major penalty on University employee unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such a representation has been duly taken into consideration.