A D N BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS leading to the petition are that the petitioner joined as 'kulpati' (Vice Chancellor) of Awadhesh Pratap Singh yishwa Vidyalay (hereinafter referred to as APS University for brevity) on 15-9-2003 for a period of four years. Hon'ble Governor of State of Madhya Pradesh in the capacity of 'kuladhipati' (Chancellor) of the APS University constituted a committee for making enquiry with respect to various allegations relating to administrative, financial and academic irregularities against the petitioner. It was found prima facie that further enquiry was required against the petitioner within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 14 of M. P. Vishwa Vidyalay adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as University Act for short ). Accordingly, an order was passed on 23-9-2006 by the 'kuladhipati' to make an enquiry in public interest vide Annx. A/1. Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to prove his case before the enquiry committee. The Committee levelled in all 19 allegations against the petitioner with respect to 7 financial irregularities, 6 academic irregularities and 6 administrative irregularities. Certain allegations were, ultimately, found as proved by the enquiry committee and on its basis a show cause notice dated 6-12-2006 contained in Annx. A/3 was issued to the petitioner in exercise of powers under sub-section (4) of section 14 of the university Act. Hon'ble 'kuladhipati' in exercise of powers under section 14 (4)of the University Act directed the petitioner to show cause as to why an order for relinquishment from the post of Vice-Chancellor may not be passed against the petitioner for the latter's inability to discharge the duties as provided in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (3) of section 14 of the University Act. It was further mentioned in the show cause notice that in case, if, the petitioner wishes to peruse the record or to obtain the copies, he may submit a list of such record/documents to the 'registrar of the University. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice as contained in Annx. A/6. Writ Petition No. 18476/06 (5) was submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice which was dismissed by this Court on 5-12-2006 on the ground that no case for interference was made out. Hon'ble 'kuladhipati', thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 25-1-2007 contained in Annx. A/8 holding that the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties entrusted to him under the Act and has acted in certain cases against the interest of the University in adverse manner and that the petitioner has been unable to manage the activities of the University. Hon'ble 'kuladhipati' found that the petitioner's continuance on the post of 'kulpati' was not in the interest of the University. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (3) of section 14 of the University Act, the petitioner was ordered to relinquish the post of Vice Chancellor with effect from 27-1-2007. Simultaneously, Hon'ble 'kuladhipati' nominated Dr. R. N. Shukla, professor, Environment Biology; APS University Rewa to act as 'kulpati' of the aps University until further orders or until appointment of 'kulpati' in accordance with section 13 (1) of the University Act. This order is on record as annx. A/9.

(2.) IN the aforesaid background, the present petition has been submitted by the petitioner with allegations that the entire action on the part of respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. According to the petitioner the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the University Act. No enquiry has been held under section 10 of the university Act, which alone could have been resorted to. It is contended that without holding an enquiry under section 10 of the said Act, the impugned order contained in Annx. A/8 could not have been legally passed. It is further contended that the respondent No. 2 ought to have made a complaint to Lok Ayukt under section 10-A of the said Act. Particulars of the complainants were not provided to the petitioner and the same were not even disclosed. Copies of the complaints were also not supplied to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in law. Petitioner has not committed any irregularity; financial, academic or administrative and could not have been ordered to relinquish the post of Vice Chancellor in the impugned manner. Enquiry under section 10 of the said Act is sine qua non for exercise of power under section 14 (3) of the University Act. The impugned order having been passed in exercise of such powers without making an enquiry required mandatorily under section 10 of the University Act is liable to be quashed. This apart, most of the allegations against the petitioner were found not proved and on the basis of proven charges, the impugned order regarding relinquishment is not sustainable in law being highly disproportionate. Order directing relinquishment was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the impugned order has also been passed ignoring the observations of this Court made in Annex A/7.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 submitted his return refuting thereby the allegations contained in the writ petition. According to respondent No. 2, the impugned order has been passed by the Hon'ble 'kuladhipati' after due enquiry and in accordance with the provisions of the University Act. Petitioner was found to have acted against the interest of the University and was found guilty of various charges. He failed to discharge the duties of Vice Chancellor and was unable to manage the administration of the University. Accordingly, the powers under section 14 (3) of the said Act have been rightly and lawfully exercised.