GYANESH SHUKLA Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Sri Savtra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(2.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 14.02.2000 passed by Lucknow University, Lucknow and order dated 30.09.2000 passed by the Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow. The petitioner was dismissed from the post of Lecturer in Commercial Arts in the College of Arts and Crafts, Lucknow. The allegations of molestation with a girl student are the basis of order of dismissal. Facts, in brief, as submitted by Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner was awarded Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts from the College of Arts & Crafts, Lucknow affiliated to Lucknow University. Thereafter petitioner was awarded Master's Degree in Fine Arts from Maharaja Sayaji Rao University, Baroda, State of Gujrat and he was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Commercial Arts on 16.10.1993 . He was confirmed on the post of Lecturer on 19.11.1994. The petitioner being the senior most Lecturer and having been found suitable was promoted as Head of Department of Commercial Arts. However, in most arbitrary manner services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Commercial Arts, College of Arts and Crafts, Lucknow by exercising the power under Statute 16.04 (b) (e) of the First Statutes of Lucknow Universities (hereinafter referred as ''Statutes') was dismissed by means of impugned order dated 14.02.2000 ( Anneure no.2 to the writ petition) passed by Lucknow University, Lucknow. Without considering the facts of the case in its true spirit and ignoring the prescribed procedure under the Statutes for imposing major punishment the petitioner was dismissed. The order of dismissal was passed in violation of principles of natural justice .The Chancellor also failed to appreciate the fact of the case and also did not consider that the order dated 14.02.2000 has been passed in violation of procedure prescribed under the Statues for imposing major punishment while passing the order dated 30.09.2000.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned orders further submits that the same are not in consonance with Statute 8.10 read with statue 16.04, which provides that a teacher of the University may be dismissed or removed or terminated on one or more grounds specified therein.