AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Palok Bandasu, J.—Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Degree College, Banda through its ex officio President the Committee of Management thereof are two petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ViceChancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi Shri Shiv Sharan Gupta are the two opposite parties. The challenge is to the order dated 24111994 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi whereby the suspension order passed against Shri Shiv Sharan Gupta by the petitioners has been revoked.
Shri P. N. Saxena assists Shri R. K. Pandey for the petitioners, Shri Ashok Khare assisted by Shri Saumitra Singh for the opposite party Mo. 2 Shri R. P. Tiwari on behalf of the ViceChancellor have been heard for against this, petition at length.
The short facts are that the petitioners have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the said Shiv Sharan Gupta who admittedly is a lecturer in sociology in the college on the ground that he was found loitering in a drunken condition on 3101994 when the F. I. R. consequent criminal case has been registered against him under Section 34 of the Police Act. This act or conduct of the teacher came for consideration before the Committee of Management in the meeting on 30101994 a resolution was adopted unanimously that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against tm opposite party No. 2 he should be placed under suspension. This wis represented by the opposite party No. 2, Shiv Sharan Gupta, before the Vice Chancellor who in exercise of the power conferred by Section 35 of the State University Act, for short Act hereinafter, revoked the order of suspension which is giving rise to this writ petition as mentioned above.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Vice Chancellor is palpably illegal for three reasons, firstly, it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, secondly, this order will be in the teeth of the provisions contained in subsection (iv) of Section 35 of the Act because there is nothing in the order which may justify the exercise thereof at the instance of the Vice Chancellor, thirdly, the conduct of the teacher concerned being wholly unfit for a teacher of a degree college has been completely byepassed by the Vice Chancellor.
It was contended on behalf of the University that since by the order dated 28101994 the Vice Chancellor had intimated the petitioners that regular elections have not been held, the society or the committee of management was not to be treated as recognized by the University, therefore, the Committee of Management could not have initiated proceedings against the teacher concerned. Shri Tiwari argued that the Vice Chancellor, by the impugned order, has obviously permitted to proceed with the enquiry; There is contradiction in the terms in the said argument. If the Vice Chancellor was not satisfied with the lawful continuance of the Committee of Management or society, he could not have even the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings to be legal. It does appear that the Vice Chancellor has, therefore, not applied his mind before revoking the suspension order. Shri Ashok Khare vehementally argued that in view of the provisions contained in the memorum of association, a copy of which is filed as Annexure I to the writ petition, the present Committee of Management cannot be treated to be a writ petition, the present Committee of Management cannot be treated to be a valid Committee of Management , therefore, no action whatsoever could have been taken by it whether it be disciplinary proceedings or the suspension order during its continuance. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of Supreme Court reported in Nand Deo Pandey v. Committee of Management others, AIR 1991 SC 413. Reference to this argument shall be made shortly here after.
The primary objective of an educational institution is to impart teaching to the students. While on the one h the colleges the institutions have to be maintained by Committee of Management, the actual teaching part has to be maintained by the teachers or lecturers who must be of a character which is adorable by the students. In any case if the teachers is found for whatsoever reason, involved in a case under Section 34 of the Police Act having been found in a drunken state loitering in the street in the day or night, it does become a concern for the Committee of Management to see that the said teacher does not come to take classes at least so long as the inquiry is pending against him with regard to his alleged unbecoming conduct. It may be specifically pointed out that this aspect has been completely ignored by the ViceChancellor while passing the impugned order. Since only enquiry was to be held ultimate finding of guilt was to be established, it should have been in the fitness of the things that the Vice Chancellor should have permitted the suspension to stand and the enquiry to go to its logical conclusion.
This necessitates a close look to the powers of the Vice Chancellor, conferred by subsection (iv) of Section 35 of the Act, It provides that the ViceChancellor has power of revoking or modifying the order of suspension. But this must be read along with the provision which confers the primary power of suspension on a Committee of Management. Such a power of the committee of management is conferred by the First Statutes. Para No. 15.05 of the First Statutes provides that a teacher of an affiliated college may be dismissed or removed on grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (h). Clause (e) provides ''scandalous conduct'' clause (1) provides ''misconduct'' as grounds of dismissal or removal. Para 15.07 of the First Statutes provides that a teacher may be suspended during pendency or in contemplation of an enquiry into charges against him on the grounds (a) to (e) of Para 15.04.
It may be mentioned here that the order of suspension would cease at the end of four weeks from the date it states operating unless the teacher has been served with the charges in the meantime. In this connection the four weeks period will commence when the order of suspension starts operating only in matters where it was passed in contemplation of an enquiry.
On facts, the management was fully authorised to initiate proceedings suspend the O. P. No. 2 the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor does not show anything on merits as to why the petitioners could not have passed that order.
It was sought to be argued on behalf of the opposite parties that elections were not properly held , therefore, the society could not function because the ViceChancellor had already intimated the college of its illegal constitution, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are bad the suspension order, therefore, has been rightly interfered with.
A perusal of Annexure I i. e. byelaws of the society indicates that the District Magistrate, Banda, the Director of Education or his nominee, two members of the District Board one of the Municipal Board, Banda, the elected members of the Parliament members of Legislative Assembly of the district some other highly placed persons are the members of the society of this college. The District Magistrate or his nominee shall be the Manager of the Society. While it is true that the Committee of Management of the society may have delayed the renewal of the registration but the fact remains that the registration of the society has been renewed in November, 1994. Shri Ashok Khare, therefore, has rightly not argued the point that the society was not properly constituted but he insisted on arguing that the effect of the order dated 28101994, referred to above, will be that the Committee of Management shall not be taken to be recognised by the University.
A perusal of the letter dated 28101994 written by the Vice Chancellor is admittedly addressed to the District Magistrate as being the Chairman, Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Maha Vidyalaya, Banda. In the body of the letter, the contention of the Vice Chancellor is that the recognition granted on 23987 was dependant upon the constitution of a Managing Committee in accordance with the First Statute No. 12.05 since the said constitution has not taken place, the District Magistrate should take immediate steps to get the management constitute at the earliest. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the District Magistrate was not working as the Chairman of the Committee of Management while the most that can be said is that he may have taken steps to constitute the Committee of Management as early as possible. This letter, therefore, cannot be interpreted as conveying that Committee of Management headed by the District Magistrate was derecognized or that the Committee of Management running the college ceases to be a committee of management recognized by the University within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. Therefore, there is no force in the argument that the committee of management was or is not appropriately constituted.
In any case, so far as the teacher, opposite party No. 2 is concerned he is admittedly drawing salary from this college. His salary is drawn on the authority of this very Committee of Management is paid by the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law. As between the said teacher the college, it is Committee of Management which is drawing entitling the said teacher to receive payment of the amount of his salary. It is conclusively established that the said teacher is recognizing this very Committee of Management for the purposes of continuing in the college drawing salary.
In so far as the case of Nand Deo Pandey v. Committee of Management others, AIR 1991 SC 413, is concerned it was a case under the Intermediate Education Act. The powers of committee of management that of the society are wholly distinguishable. Existence of a society is not a prerequisite for existence of a committee of management under the Scheme of Administration for running managing an intermediate college. But in the case of degree colleges such a distinction does not exist. It is a Society which alone has to be recognized as the committee of management running the degree college. It is appropriate to quose here Section 2 (13) of the Act:
"Management", in relation to an affiliated or associated college, means the managing committee or other body charged with managing the affairs of that college recognised as such by the University".
Moreover, even on the facts there are vital distinction between the cited case the preseat matter. A dispute regarding the society was pending decision in the said case before the SubDivisional Magistrate under the provisions of the Societies Registration (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1960. It could, therefore, very legitimately be contended by the teacher in that case that the persons claiming to be a genuine committee of management do not rely constitute the lawful committee of management. Such are not the facts of this case, therefore, the aforesaid ruling has no application does not help the case of the teacher concerned in any manner whatsoever.
In the impugned order the ViceChancellor has taken two grounds for revoking the suspension order. Firstly, he says that the Committee of Management cannot be treated to be lawfully constituted recognised in view of the Universities earlier letter dated 28101994. This letter has already been discussed above no such inference can be drawn as is sought to be done by the Vice Chancellor, therefore, this reason is non existant. Secondly, the teacher concerned has obtained an interim order from this Court regarding the case under Section 34 of the Police Act regarding his conduct in the night on 3101994. A copy of the order has been filed by the teacher in his counter affidavit. The order denotes that proceedings in the court relating to the case number of the said first information report are stayed. It was rightly argued that no proceedings were sent to the court against the said number some wrong information may have been conveyed to the Court. Be that as it may the fact, however, remains that there may be so many reasons why a criminal case may or may not proceed because of an interim order by a court of law. The conduct of the petitioner in the night on 3101994 in a drunken condition i. e. loitering in the street in the drunken condition being arrested by the police lodged at the police station could be a subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the Vice Chancellor completely misdirected himself by referring to the said order on that strength revoking the suspension order. The ground also becomes completely nonexistent.
Both the grounds of revocation having thus failed, the order of revocation cannot be sustained. Moreover as stated above the Vice Chancellor has not taken note of the conduct of the petitioner has not even heard the committee of management before passing the revocation order. These two factors have not been challenged by either of the parties.
In view of the aforesaid discussions this writ petition succeeds is allowed. The order dated 241194 of the Vice Chancellor revoking the suspension order also his clarificatory order dated 24111994 mentioning therein that all actions of the committee of management are illegal, are quashed. The disciplinary proceedings shall continue in accordance with law shall be completed within four months of the first appearance of the opposite party No. 2 subject to his participation cooperation.
The parties will bear their costs.