INDRA PAL YADAV Vs. CHANCELLOR CHANDRA SHEKHAR AZAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY KANPUR RAJ BHAWAN LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. In this writ peti tion, Sri S. N. Upadhyay appeared for respondent No. 1 and Sri Vijaya Bahadur Singh appeared for respondent No. 2 Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) THE facts, in short, necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner Dr. Indrapal Singh was ap pointed Vice Chancellor of Chandra Shek har Azad University of Agriculture and Technology (here-in-after referred to as 'university') by the Chancellor by his order dated 14th April, 1994 for a period of three years. A copy of the order of appointment has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He assumed charge of the office of vice Chancellor in pursuance of the aforesaid appointment on 23rd April, 1994, THE Chancellor, however, vide order dated 6th June, 1996 has suspended petitioner with full pay. This order has been passed on various allegations of corrupt practices, abuse of power, favoritism, financial ir regularities etc. By another order of the same day, respondent No. 2 Sri Prabhat Chandra Chaturvedi, Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur has been appointed as Vice Chancellor to discharge the duty during the period of suspension. THE legality and correctness of the aforesaid two orders has been questioned by petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) SRI Ramesh Upadhyay, holding brief of SRI S. N. Upadhyaya, appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that in case of Professor Pratima Asthana v. Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and others, reported in (1991)1 UPLBEC 448, the order of suspension was quashed on the ground of delay in enquiry and was under the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act 1973. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distin guishable. It has also been submitted that in case tenure is fixed, it does not amount to express contrary intention so as to exclude the provisions of Section 16 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. The order of suspen sion by respondent No. 1 is perfectly jus tified in the facts and circumstances of the case and it does not suffer from any error of law. It has been submitted that interference by this court under Article 226 of the Con stitution at this stage will not be in the interest of the University.