ACHARYA PRABHAKAR MISHRA Vs. CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Acharya Prabhakar Mishra, the sole petitioner in this writ application, has obtained a rule from this Court against the Chancellor, Shri Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, respondent No. 1 and Shri S. C. Misra, respondent No. 2, to show cause why the order dated the 20th March, 1972 passed by the Chancellor suspending the petitioner from the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the said Sanskrit University, a copy of which is Annexure '2' to the writ application, as also the order of the same date appointing respondent No. 2 as Acting Vice-Chancellor in place of the petitioner, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ application, be not called up and quashed in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 1 by Mr. Balabhadra Prasad Singh, learned Advocate-General Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha appeared in support of the rule. Very many facts have been, stated in the petition, which have been controverted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the petitioner. Since no argument was advanced on either side with reference to the detailed facts of the case, I shall refrain from stating them except the skeleton ones. The whole of the argument was confined to the question as to the power of the Chancellor to order suspension of the Vice-Chancellor with reference to the relevant statute, namely the Kameshwara Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishvavidlalaya Act, 1962 (Bihar Act 21 of 1965) hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) The then Chancellor of the Sanskrit University, Shri Nityanand Kanungo, in exercise of his power under Sec. 10 (2) of the Act, appointed the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor for a period of three years from the date he assumed charge of his office. A copy of this order dated the 22nd December, 1970 is Annexure 1 to the writ application. Annexure B to the counter-affidavit is a copy of the notification dated the 19th March, 1972 issued by the Governor of Bihar who is the Chancellor of the University, in exercise of his power conferred by Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 appointing a Commission of Enquiry to enquire into and report in regard to the various allegations of corruption, favouritism, abuse of power and mal-practiecs levelled against the petitioner in connection with his office as Vice-Chancellor of the Sanskrit University. Numerous items of such allegations have been enumerated in the notification. It is not necessary to reproduce them. On the 20th of March, 1972 respondent No. 1 issued the following notification (Annexure 2)-

(3.) The whole of the argument strenuously put forward by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Chancellor had no power under Section 10 (2) of the Act read with Section 19 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 to dismiss the petitioner or to suspend him, as under the Act the appointment was for a fixed, certain period of three years. The said period, under no circumstances, Counsel submitted, could be curtailed by termination of the appointment or dismissal of the petitioner and hence he could not be put under suspension either. Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, however, fairly conceded and, in my opinion, rightly that if there was power in the Chancellor to dismiss the Vice-Chancellor under the Act, he had also the power to suspend him. Learned Advocate-General on the other hand, combated the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Bool Chand v. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, AIR 1968 SC 292, Learned Counsel for the petitioner not only distinguished the said decision but endeavoured to press this into service for his benefit also.