PROFESSOR PRATIMA ASTHANA Vs. CHANCELLOR GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was initially filed challenging the order passed by the Chancellor on 17-5-1990 purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner who was the Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University in exercise of the powers under U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1990 which enabled the Chancellor to terminate the services of any Vice-Chancellor of a State University at any time, by giving him three months' notice or three months' pay in lieu thereof, or by giving a shorter notice and pay for the period by which such notice falls short of three months. The validity of this Ordinance was also challenged on diverse grounds which it is not necessary to elaborate here in view of subsequent developments. The petition was admitted and various interim orders were passed from time to time. The Chancellor was restrained from malting any fresh appointment of Vice-Chancellor for the Gorakhpur University till further orders of this Court. The Chancellor was, however, left free to make interim arrangement in terms of sub-section (10) of Section 12 of U. P. State Universities Act. Exercising the powers under that provision the Chancellor appointed one Professor Bhumitra Deo as an interim Vice-Chancellor for a period of six mohths which period has also expired on 22-2-1991. During the pendency of this petition, however, another Ordinance was issued being U. P. Ordinance No. 19 of 1990. Sub-section (12) of Section 12 of U. P. State Universities Act made provision for removal of Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor if in the opinion of the letter, the Vice- Chancellor wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him, or if it otherewise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interests of the University after making such enquiry as he deems proper. Sub-section 13 of Section 12 of the said Act after amendment by this latter Ordinance, provides that the Chancellor shall have the power to suspend the Vice-Chancellor during the pendency or in contemplation of any inpuiry referred to in sub-section (12) of Section 12. Another provision of U. P. Ordinance No. 19 of 1990 which has been the subject of main debate at the Bar is clause 4 which reads thus : 4. (1) The Uttar Pradesh State Universities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1990 is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal ,- (a) anything done or any action taken under section 31 of the Principal Act as amended by the Ordinance referred to in sub-section (1), shall be deemed to have been done or taken under section 31 of the principal Act as amended by this Ordinance, as if the provisions of section 3 of this Ordinance were in force at all material times; (b) any order of termination of the appointment of any Vice-Chancellor passed by the Chancellor under the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 12 of the principal Act as substituted by the Ordinance referred to in sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be, and shall be effective as, an order of supension of the Vice-Chancellor in contemplation of enquiry, passed by the Chancellor under sub-section (13) of section 12 of the Principal Act as inserted by this Ordinance, as if the provisions of section 2 of this Ordinance were in force at all material times."

(2.) THE net effect of the two amendments brought about by U. P. Ordinances Nos. 11 and 19 of 1990 as well as the order passed by the Chancellor terminating the services of the petitioner by giving her three months' notice is that the petitioner stood suspended as a matter of legal fiction with effect from the date on which the Chancellor had earlier terminated her services in terms of clause (b) of sub-clause (2) of clause 4 of U. P. Ordinance No. 19. of 1990. No separate order of suspension was admittedly passed against the petitioner. THE stand taken by the respondents, however, is that as a matter of law the petitioner stood suspended in contemplation of enquiry under sub-section (13) of Section 12 of the U. P. State Universities Act as amended by U. P. Ordinance No. 19 of 1990.

(3.) SRI K. N. Tripathi representing the Chancellor, however, submitted in the first place that there has not been any such undue delay so as to justify quashing the order of suspension on the ground of undue delay. Secondly, even if this Court is inclined to quash the order of suspension on the ground of delay, it should be open to the Chancellor to exercise his power to place the petitioner under suspension in the future in case of discovery of further material and facts which may make it necessary to re-suspend the petitioner, so to say, for proper conduct of the enquiry into the charges against the petitioner.