SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. L. P. Misra, learned counsel for the University and Sri Devendra Arora, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner, who is presently posted as Registrar, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, being aggrieved by an order of suspension dated 2nd November, 2002, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Rule 36 of the U. P. State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Centralised Service Rules), the petitioner could not be placed under suspension, as these Rules do not vest any power with the State Government to suspend a member of the Centralised Service. U. P. State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1975, have been enacted by the Governor under the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the U, P. State Universities Act, 1973. as re-enacted and amended by U. P. Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974. These Rules have been framed for creation of a separate service of the Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars, common to all the Universities to which the aforesaid Act applies, and for regulating the recruitment to and conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service. Rule 3 of the Centralised Service Rules provides for creation of Centralised Service of Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars. Besides, these Rules prescribe for various matters in relation to the recruitment, qualification, reservation, confirmation, seniority and other conditions of service. Rule 36 deals with the disciplinary proceedings, which reads as under :