Binod Kumar Rai vs Vinoba Bhave University and Others

Heard the parties.

The petitioner had come before this Court earlier vide W.P. (S) No. 5618 of 2002 making a grievance that the ad hoc committee of the college had taken a resolution on 2.9.2002 vide agenda No. 8 to remove the petitioner from the post of Professor In-charge (Principle In-charge) of the college and to handover charge of his post to Shri Arjun Rai a lecturer in the Department of Mathematics.

On of us, by order dated 22.11.2002 took note of the fact that Shri Arjun Rai had not been impleaded as a party although a statement/allegation was made by the petitioner to the effect that Shri Arjun Rai was junior to the petitioner. In that context the matter was remanded to the Vice Chancellor with a direction that he will determine the question as to who amongst them was the senior most teacher of the college and who should be Professor In-charge of the college and communicate the decision within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the representation.

The desire of this Court was therefore two fold : The Vice Chancellor was directed to :

(a) Determine the question as to who was senior

(b) Determine the question as to who should be the Professor In-charge of the college.

Thus in the order of this Court dated 22.11.2002, there is an order directing the consideration of suitability of the person concerned because otherwise, the question as to who should be the Professor In-charge of the college would not have been raised. In other words, what this Court wanted to determine was to find out as to who was suitable to hold this post.

in that context the Vice Chancellor took into consideration the factors and by his order dated 8.4.2003 he held that the petitioner was senior to Shri Arjun Prasad Rai. Having so held, he however took into consideration the communication made to the University by the ad hoc Committee on 2.9.2002 by which it had taken a decision to remove the petitioner and in that background, directed the ad hoc Committee to investigate into the charges levelled against the petitioner and submit parawise report to him on 17th April, 2003,

This is where the Vice Chancellor acted contrary to well known principles of nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa (No man can be a judge of his own cause).

This Court hastens to clarify that it has not in any way condemned the finding of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor, in the capacity of being the Chief Executive Officer of the University is certainly entitled to have complete knowledge about all the employees and in that process and in order to comply the requirements posed by this Court in the earlier petition as to who should hold that post was also entitled to seek the assistance of people within the University so as to come to a reasonable conclusion. However he should not have handed over this onerous responsibility to the same person or body who/ which had already found the petitioner guilty of some allegations and had communicated its resolution to remove him from that post.

On the aforementioned point therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, in so far as it only relates to making a direction upon the ad hoc Committee to investigate into the matter is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Vice Chancellor once again to deal with this issue. In the process, if he desires that he requires the assistance of other officers, he may seek such assistance but this will not be from any of the officers who are the members of that ad hoc Committee. The Vice Chancellor will do the needful as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

The writ petition is closed.