SACHIN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned State Counsel representing the respondent nos.1 and 4, Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Tiwari for the respondent no.2, Shri L.P. Misra, leaned counsel representing the respondent no.3 and Shri Atul Dwivedi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.5.

(2.) Proceedings of this petition have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dtd. 24/3/2022 passed by the Chancellor of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ' the Chancellor'), whereby the petitioner, who was appointed as Registrar of the said University, has been placed under suspension. Another order which is under challenge in this writ petition is dtd. 31/3/2023 passed by the Chancellor constituting a three member inquiry committee for inquiring into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner while working as Registrar of the University.

(3.) It has been argued by Shri Gaurav Mehrotra that the petitioner is a member of Provincial Civil Services and the conditions of his service including disciplinary matters are governed by the provisions contained in the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1982') and Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to 'Rules 1999'). It has been argued further by Shri Mehrotra that under the Rules 1982, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Hon'ble the Governor and in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975 framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India, matters relating to disciplinary action etc. of the members of Provincial Civil Service has to go up to Hon'ble the Chief Minister for approval and, accordingly, the Chancellor, not being his appointing authority, is not empowered either to place him under suspension or to constitute any inquiry committee.