K C MALHOTRA Vs. H P UNIVERSITY SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dr. K. C. Malhotra joined H. P. University since its very inception and had been posted as Dean of Sciences, Dean of Students Welfare and Dean of Studies. He as appointed as an acting vice Chancellor in the University of Himachal Pradesh on 18/01/1986 and with effect from lst March, 1986, he was appointed as Vice Chancellor for a period of five years as was then prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh University Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act). The Act was later on amended and the term of the office of the Vice Chancellor was reduced to three years. However, the petitioner continued to have renewal of the terms as Vice Chancellor and finally on 6/07/1991, his terms of office of Vice Chancellor was renewed for a further period of three years vide order dated 6/07/1991 (Annexure-PA). The petitioner's three years term was to expire in July, 1994 but in the meantime on 22/09/1993, a notification was issued by the respondent No. 1 purporting to be in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 12(5) of the Act, ordering removal of the petitioner from the office of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. Copy of the notification is Annexure PG.

(2.) Dr. K. C. Malhotra, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for quashing the notification No. 4-5/71-GS-IV dated 22/09/1993 issued by Secretary to Chancellor (Annexure PG) whereby the petitioner has been removed as Vice Chancellor of H. P. University, on various grounds, as enumerated in para 15 of the petition, which for the sake of convenience and for proper appreciation of the matter under controversy, are being reproduced hereunder in verbatim :

(3.) The petitioner has very specifically pleaded that certain interested rival groups in the University felt themselves aggrieved on some imaginary issues as the petitioner, as a Vice Chancellor, was required to take many decisions, which were not to the liking of certain persons and those persons continued to have grievances of their own inasmuch as and when a Professor or a Lecturer was not selected to a higher post or if a junior person was selected to a higher post, the person so superseded started levelling allegations of mala fide, favouritism, violation of rules etc. against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, several memoranda which were vague were sent to the respondent No. 1 and for which the petitioner was called upon to reply from time to time, but no action was taken obviously for the reasons that the aforesaid allegations were based upon imaginary grounds. The petitioner also pleaded that eversince the then incumbent to the office of Governor, joined which is also an ex-officio Chancellor of the University of Himachal Pradesh, certain reports started appearing in the papers that a few pressure groups had been meeting the Chancellor and levelling many allegations of favouritism, corruption, violation of rules etc. and a few of the allegations were communicated to the petitioner also for his comments and he continued sending the replies thereto and many allegations were found to be imaginary and thus were dropped. The petitioner had no hesitation in pleading in very clear terms that the respondent No. 1 had already decided to remove the petitioner item the office of Vice Chancellor even without asking for any, explanation and certain statements appeared in the Press that the Governor had decided to remove the petitioner as would be evident from the Press report appearing in the daily Tribune dated 10/09/1993 (copy Annexure PB). In this newspaper, it was reported that the Governor was likely to ask the petitioner to resign, though this news report was contradicted on the next date by the Chancellor stating that he had not yet applied his mind to the explanation furnished by the petitioner, but in his earlier report, he had definitely made up his mind to ask the petitioner to resign from the Vice Chancellorship of the University. According to the petitioner on 26th August, l993, the Secretary to the Chancellor issued a Demi Official letter No. 4-80/93-GS (copy Annexure PC), to him in which as many as eight allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to give the parawise comments. According to the said demi official letter "some of the above allegations may not be very specific but it is requested that full facts in respect of these so far as possible may be supplied for the information of the Hon'ble Governor (Chancellor) by 4/09/1993". This letter did not give even a semblance of notice to the effect that the aforesaid letter was being treated as chargesheet for holding an inquiry as contemplated under Section 12(5) of the Act. The petitioner also alleged that he replied to the aforesaid allegations vide his letter dated 3/09/1993 and filed his elaborate explanation (copy Annexure PE).