9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious acts of misconduct, a preliminary enquiry was held pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in a meeting held on 02nd May 2003. For the said purpose a Committee of three senior members was constituted. The said Committee submitted its report on or about 30th May 2003. 3. Appellants, upon consideration of the said report, by a resolution adopted in a meeting held on 05th June 2003, took a decision to hold a proper disciplinary enquiry. He was placed under suspension. Vice- Chancellor of the University was also duly informed thereabout. 4. A charge-sheet containing eight charges was issued against the respondent no.3. He, however, did not file any show cause/reply thereto. 5. Upon recording evidence of some witnesses, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 03rd March 2004 opining that the respondent no.3 was prima facie guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, causing wrongful gain to himself and causing wrongful loss to the institution. Relevant portion of the report of the Enquiry Committee is quoted here to below : In view of the aforesaid findings of the inquiry committee the charged employee can be said to be guilty of misconduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e procedures established by the governing/managing body/college. The said decision of removal from service of managing body of the college is not in accordance to the provisions of 35(2) of 1st Statute of Lucknow University and is therefore, liable to be struck down. Therefore, in exercising of the power conferred under Section 35(2) of U.P. State University Act 1973, to Vice Chancellor in this context, the Managing Committee, college is directed that Dr. M.N. Khan be allowed to work as Principal with all benefits because decision of the managing body for removal from service is ex-parte unsatisfactory and not as per law. In the matter under reference, since as per his representation dated 24.4.2006 Dr. M.N. Khan Principal has attained the age of superannuation on 3.1.2006 the Managing Committee of College is directed to consider and take steps for retirement of Dr. M.N. Khan in accordance with rules. 9. Challenging the legality and/or validity of the said order, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court which, by reason of the impugned order, has been dismissed, stating: Against the impugned order dated 7/12.7.2006 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Luckno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that view of the matter, the impugned order should not be interfered with; and (ii) In view of the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act as only a regulatory power has been conferred upon the Vice Chancellor and not a power to grant prior approval as envisaged under the main provision, the said Statute cannot be said to be ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India as such regulatory measures are permissible in law. 14. The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 was enacted with a view to toning up the academic and financial administration of higher education in State of U.P. A comprehensive Bill applicable to all the State Universities (except the Roorkee University and Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural University), was prepared in the light of the recommendations made by various Commissions and Committees appointed by the Government of India and the State Government and also the views of the Vice-Chancellors and other educationists. 15. Various officers have been named in the Act to perform their respective functions as conferred upon them either under the Act or the Statute. Section 35 of the Act, inter alia, regulates the conditions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * * * * Statute 17.06, which is relevant for our purpose, is reproduced below : 17.06.(1) No order dismissing, removing or terminating the services of a teacher on any ground mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Statute 17.04 (except in the case of a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude or of abolition of post) shall be passed unless a charge has been framed against the teacher and communicated to him with a statement of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and he has been given adequate opportunity:- (i) of submitting a written statement of his defence; (ii) of being heard in person, if he so chooses, and (iii) of calling and examining such witness in his defence as he may wish; Provided that the Management or the officer authorized by it to conduct the inquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call any witness. (2) The management may, at any time ordinarily within two months from the date of the Inquiry Officer's report pass a resolution dismissing or removing the teacher concerned from service, or terminating his services mentioning the grounds of such dismissal, removal or termination. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the circumstances of the case or whether his decision was totally perverse and passed in ignorance of the mass of evidence of the Committee of Management as also several witnesses examined before him regarding the conduct of the meetings. It was in the aforementioned situation, this Court observed : .... In our opinion it is not for this Court to appraise the factual circumstances and come to a conclusion whether the order of the Vice Chancellor is correct or not, particularly when it is open to the aggrieved party, under Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act, to have a reference made to the Chancellor of the University who has ample powers to decide whether any decision taken by any authority or officer is in conformity with the statutes and ordinances of the University. In view of this provision it is open to the Committee of Management to make a reference to the Chancellor to decide the issue regarding the validity of the termination of the services of Dr. Gaur and of the order of the Vice Chancellor. .... 19. This Court, therefore, having regard to the factual matrix obtaining therein, refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 20. Apart from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntertaining writ petitions even when there is an alternative remedy in existence. No doubt alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, but ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained if there is an alternative remedy. [Emphasis supplied] 23. Thus, even therein no legal principle has been laid down that in all situations, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction only on the ground that an alternative remedy is available. We may notice that Dr. Padia himself, in his usual fairness, has brought to our notice several decisions which upheld the validity of the regulatory power on the part of the University or affiliating bodies in the matter of order of dismissal, removal or suspension of an employee, viz., Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 707; Mrs. Y. Theclamma v. Union of India Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 516 and Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union Anr. etc. v. Christian Medical College Vellore Association Ors. etc. (1987) 4 SCC 691, on the one hand, and the decisions opining that such a wide power cannot be conferred on a university, institution and minority ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minority institutions also, provided that such law does not interfere with the overall administrative control of the management over the staff. 21. We may also recapitulate the extent of regulation by the State, permissible in respect of employees of minority educational institutions receiving aid from the State, as clarified and crystallized in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481. The State can prescribe : (i) ......... (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, (iii) ......... (iv) ... ... ... 24. Whether in a case of this nature such a power has properly been exercised or not, in our opinion, being an intricate question should ordinarily fall for determination by the High Court itself. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of a Seven-Judge Bench of this court in the case of P.A. Inamdar Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537 wherein it has been held : 126. The observations in para 68 of the majority opinion in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 on which the learned counsel for the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
