H K SRIVASTAVA Vs. MEERUT UNIVERSITV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges in this writ petition the order terminating his services as Professor of Agricultural Botany dated the 20th October. 1974. The petitioner has characterised this termination to be bv wav of punishment and has praved for a writ to auash the order of the Executive Council dated the 20th October. 1974.

(2.) The petitioner had a commendable academic career both in this Country and abroad. After having obtained a Doctorate in Agricultural Botanv from the Texas A & M University (U. S. A.) and Post Doctorate work in the Edinburgh University he ioined the Harvana Agricultural University as Associate professor in Genetics. Subseauentlv. on the 2nd of November. 1972 he was appointed Professor of Agricultural Botanv in the Meerut University. Meerut at the ase of 28 years. The same year he was appointed the Head of the Department and also became the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture and a member of the Executive Council of the Meerut University. His appointment letter which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Professor of Agricultural Botanv on probation of one year with effect from the date he ioined the post. It further appears from the said letter of appointment that the Meerut University was keen to have him on the staff of the University. The petitioner actually ioined the service with the Meerut University on 28th November. 1972. Although the period of probation was mentioned to be one year no order was passed during this period either extending the period of probation or confirming him as professor. The Kanour and Agra University Act was repealed bv Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act. 1973. The later Act came into force on the 2nd of September. 1973. The earlier Act was repealed and the conditions of service of the teachers of the University were to be regulated bv the later Act. On the 6th of August. 1974 Shri B. S. Mathur took over as the acting Vice-Chancellor on the retirement of Shri J. N. Kapoor There was certain correspondence between Shri B. S. Mathur and the petitioner. Ultimately in the meeting of the Executive Council dated the 20th October. 1974 the case regarding the confirmation of the petitioner was considered. Two resolutions were passed which are contained in Annexure 15 to the writ petition. It will be relevant to auote them.

(3.) It is against these resolutions of the Executive Council of the Meerut University that the present writ petition has been directed. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the report made bv the Vice-Chancellor to the Executive Council which is marked as Annexure 16 to the writ petition. The petitioner's case was that the report of the Vice-Chancellor indicated that there were allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor was called uoon to make a report about the work and conduct of the petitioner but if he chose to rely on any act of misconduct of the petitioner it was necessary in that event for the executive Council to have constituted a Board of Enauiry to go into the matter. The termination was therefore not a termination simoliciter. It was a termination by wav of punishment. The petitioner had not been given anv opportunity to explain the charges that the Vice Chancellor had mentioned against him in his report nor was he afforded anv opportunity bv the Executive Council before an order terminating his services was passed. It was further contended that since the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of one year he would be deemed to have been confirmed and therefore he could not be deemed to be on probation and conseauently his services could not be terminated in the manner in which it has been done. Allegations have been made in the writ petition about the Executive Council not being properly constituted at the time when the termination order was passed but this point was not pressed in the arguments. There are also allegations of mala fides against the Vice Chancellor Sri B. S. Mathur and although arguments were raised in this respect but were not pressed. Shri M. P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the point of mala fides was not pressed.