S S GUPTA Vs. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a Lecturer in Chemistry in the Lucknow University. A private complaint under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was instituted against him in connection with the affairs of a cooperative society of which the Petitioner was an office bearer. In view of the pendency of this complaint, the Executive Council of University suspended the Petitioner in 1974. That suspension order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1211 of 1974. It was held by this Court, allowing writ petition, that the decision of the Executive Council to suspend the Petitioner was without jurisdiction as there was no provision in the State Universities Act or the Statutes framed thereunder or in the contract of service providing for such suspension. Thereafter the first statutes of the University came into force and under Statute No. 16.07 provision was made for suspension of the services of a teacher or other employee of the University and for payment of subsistence allowance in place of salary during the period of suspension. The Executive Council relying on this new statute again passed a suspension order against the Petitioner on the sole ground that the Petitioner was an accused in the criminal case referred to above. This order is mentioned in the letter of the Registrar addressed to the Petitioner on 1 -7 -76, vide annexure 9 to the writ petition. By this Writ Petition the Petitioner has again approached this Court to challenge this fresh suspension order.

(2.) Admittedly, no disciplinary inquiry is pending or contemplated against the Petitioner. He has been suspended merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against him. Statute No. 16.07 does not give any power to any University authorities to pass any order of suspension merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. This statute does mention the power of dismissal or removal of an employee in consequence of his conviction. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was convicted by the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate on 31 -3 -77 and sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Thereafter, his conviction has recently been upheld by this Court. There is, however, no suggestion before us that the Petitioner has remained in prison in pursuance of any such sentence for more than 48 hours. Thus Clause (2) of Statute 16.07 has not been shown to be attracted to the case. The impugned suspension order being not passed during the pendency or in contemplation of an inquiry into the charge against him, the impugned order cannot be justified under Clause (1) of statute 16.07. No other provision has been shown to us on the basis of which such a suspension could be ordered. Accordingly, the order must be held to be without jurisdiction.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the suspension order mentioned in the Registrar's letter dated 1 -7 -76, annexure 9 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The Petitioner shall, accordingly, be entitled to his full salary for the entire period. It appears that under interim orders of this Court, the University has been depositing the Petitioner's salary, and out of the amounts deposited, the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw amounts equivalent to subsistence allowance. The balance amount in deposit shall also be paid to the Petitioner. No order as to costs.