P N VARMAN Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Dr. P. N. Varman, held the post of Professor in Veterinary Physiology in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. On the basis of some charges, he was removed from service by an order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 28-9-84. He challenged the said order by means of a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and a learned single Judge on 27-2-89 set aside the order of removal. As a consequence thereof, he was put on job on May 31, 1989 and since then stands stationed in his post with the aid of subsequent interim orders passed in his favour from time to time by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal as also by this Court in the special leave petition and presently this appeal. He has remained out of job for nearly four years and eight months from 28-9-84 to 31-5-89.

(2.) The core controversy before the learned single Judge of the High Court as also before the Letters Patent Bench (on appeal at the instance of the University) was whether the Vice-Chancellor was the appointing and punishing authority of the appellant and hence the authority entitled to effect his removal. The appellant's contention was that it was the Board of Management which was competent to do so and not the Vice-Chancellor. The University entertained contrary views. The learned single Judge held the Board of Management to be the appointing authority while the Letters Patent Bench held to the contrary. When the matter came before us we had passed an interim order on 11-3-92 requiring the Board of Management to decide the question of its own jurisdiction so as to say whether it had the initial power of removal or as a higher body had the power of correction so as to reverse the Vice-Chancellor. We required of it to examine the matter uninfluenced by the reasoning of either Bench of the High Court. We also required of the Board of Management to record a finding on the merits of the case so that we could be benefited by its views and be in a position to dispose of this matter.

(3.) Pursuant to our orders the Board of Management vide its report dated June 11, 1992 has described the appointment of the appellant as that of a teacher and thus the Vice-Chancellor as its delegate and as such empowered to make such appointment and effect removal. On merits the Board of Management opined that the charges against the appellant stood proved and there was no ground to interfere with the punishment of removal.