DILIP KUMAR SARKAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this proceeding, the petitioner, who is the Registrar of North Bengal University, (the university) challenges the legality of an order issued by the ViceChancellor of the University of North Bengal suspending him in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. The order of suspension was passed on 30th March 2010. A copy of this order has been annexed to the writ petition, marked "P16". This order provides:

(2.) This order has been challenged mainly on the ground of non-application of mind and non-disclosure of reasons. The order of suspension records that the impugned order was passed in terms of Clause 27 of the University Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1975. The said clause empowers the appointing authority or any authority empowered by the Executive Council of the University to place any employee of the university under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding or departmental enquiry against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor (respondent no. 3) to exercise power under Rule 27 was questioned on behalf of the petitioner. In course of hearing, Mr. Sengupta learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in respect of Registrar of the University, it was the Executive Council who were the appointing authority and there was no authorisation or delegation of power to the respondent no. 3 as per the said to enable him to exercise power under the said Rule. This issue was examined by this Court at the time of consideration of the petitioner's case for interim order, when learned Counsel for the respondents 4 submitted that source of such power could be traced to Section 10(6) of the North Bengal University Act, 1981 (the Act). Mr. Saktinath Mukhopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents however has submitted at the final stage of hearing of this case that the impugned order was issued in terms of Section 10(6) of the Act, 1981. In this judgment, I shall accordingly test the legality of the order treating the same to be an order issued under Section 10(6) of the Act. The mere fact that in the order itself it has been recorded that the same was being passed under Rule 27 would not per se vitiate the order if the power or jurisdiction to pass such order can be traced to any other provision of law.

(3.) Section 10 of the Act deals with powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor and sub-section (6) of Section 10 vests in such authority certain emergency powers. This provision stipulates:-