MEENA PRASAD Vs. LALIT NARAYAN MITHLA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as under:-

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly that the order dtd. 30/7/2021 has been passed contrary to the statutes of the university, which lay down the method and manner in which suspension order has been passed. Learned senior counsel has taken this court to the Article 10 and 15 of the Statute, wherein it is provided the manner and procedure of suspension in two different circumstances. It is submitted that while a university servant can be placed under suspension certain principles are required to be observed, which were not followed as required under Article 10 of the Statute. Learned counsel submits that the suspension as envisaged under Article 15 of the Statute is a penalty which can be imposed only after holding a regular departmental inquiry. It is submitted that in spite of the order having been passed on 31/7/2021, the petitioner has neither been paid subsistence allowance nor departmental inquiry has been initiated. It is stated that charge sheet has not been served on the petitioner. In this circumstances, learned senior counsel submits that the suspension order dtd. 31/7/2021 deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the university submits that the suspension order was issued after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent university and after inquiry made by the university through a committee and after receiving a reply the suspension order was passed and therefore this suspension is to be treated as penalty as envisaged under Article 15(4) of the Statute and therefore an appeal would lie against the said order.