DR.ASHISH RASTOGI Vs. GURU GHASIDAS CENTRAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.2.2012 (Annexure P­1) by which the petitioner has been removed by respondent No.3 from service on the ground of misconduct having been found proved against him.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Department of Computer Science and Information Technology of the respondent University. It is alleged that on 19.5.2010 the petitioner entered into examination center and examination control room unauthorizedly and thereby alleged to have caused interference in the performance of duties of the examination staff, for which he was served with the charge­sheet on 5.7.2010, to which he submitted his reply on 15.7.2010 and thereafter University witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer and on 16.12.2010 the enquiry officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority and accordingly, the disciplinary authority issued notice to the petitioner on 10.1.2011 and the petitioner submitted his representation and thereafter on 14.2.2012 the Executive Council called its emergent meeting and authorized the Vice Chancellor to take a decision in the departmental proceedings held against the petitioner and thereafter on 29.2.2012, the Vice Chancellor passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service, which has been called in question by way of this writ petition. Principally, two grounds have been raised in this writ petition. Firstly, the Executive Council is appointing authority of the petitioner and it could not have delegated the power to the Vice Chancellor for imposing the impugned penalty and secondly, the penalty of removal is commensurate to the misconduct allegedly found proved against him as the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse to the record and the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority did not follow the procedure prescribed in Rules 14 and 15 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1966') and as such, it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Return has been filed by the respondents herein supporting the order of removal stating inter­alia that looking to the misconduct committed by the petitioner, which was found proved by the enquiry officer in enquiry report submitted to the disciplinary authority on 16.12.2010, the Executive Council in its meeting dated 14.2.2012 has rightly authorized the Vice Chancellor to take a decision in this matter and accordingly, the Vice Chancellor by its order dated 29.2.2012 has inflicted the penalty of removal from service to the petitioner, which is strictly in accordance with law and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost(s).