Chattisgarh High Court
D.P. Vipra College vs Atal Vihari Bajpayee University on 30 November, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 21
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP(S) No. 10347 of 2019
Order Reserved on 06.09.2022
Order Passed on 30.11.2022
1. D.P. Vipra College through its Principal, D.P. Vipra College, Old High
Court Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG)
2. Smt. Anju Shukla wife of Shri Pramod Shukla, aged about 58 years,
Principal, D.P. Vipra College, Old High Court Road, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur (CG)
--- Petitioners
Versus
1. Atal Vihari Bajpayee University, Bilaspur a body constituted under the
relevant provisons of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam,
1973 through its Registrar, Old High Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
(CG).
2. Sonal Tiwari, S/o. Shri Ram Pratap Tiwari, Aged about 52 years, resident
of C-37, Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (CG)
--- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma with
Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2. : Mr. Shailendra Dubey and
Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order
1. The petitioner No.1 is a college which has filed the present petition through its principal assailing the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure Page 2 of 21 P/16) whereby respondent No.1 Executive Council, University stayed the suspension. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure P/19) has been issued by the University, by which it has been observed that due to typographical error suspension has been typed whereas it should be termination from service which will not effective till the approval granted by the Executive council.
2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that, the petitioner is aided institution running Post Graduate College in the Bilaspur District. The respondent No.2 who was working as head of Account Department in the petitioner's college was served with a show cause notice on 26- 27/10/2018 which was replied by respondent No.2. It has been further contended that as per minutes of meeting held on 03.12.2018 wherein the representative of respondent No.1 University was also present and a resolution to suspend the respondent No. 2 and to hold impartial enquiry was taken. It has also been contended that on 12.12.2018 (Annexure P/5) the representative of respondent No.1 has pointed out that no complaint with regard to charges has been given to respondent No.2 and approval regarding suspension of respondent No.2 has not been obtained from the member of the committee who belongs to Government colleges, thereafter, respondent No.1 taking cognizance of the said letter has issued notice to the petitioner to submit reply within one week vide its memo dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure P/5). In the meanwhile, an enquiry was conducted by Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, wherein in the enquiry report (Annexure P/2), the charges levelled against the respondent No.2 were found proved. Thereafter, the administrative committee of the College in its meeting dated 14.05.2019 has taken a decision to Page 3 of 21 terminate the service of respondent No. 2 and a notice dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure P/3) was served upon the respondent No.2.
3. It has been further contended that the respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 25.04.2019 (Annexure P/7) has informed the petitioner that the University has not agreed with the decision of the college and respondent No.2 has moved an application for reinstatement. On the basis of application of respondent No.2, a three member committee has been constituted and till the decision is taken status quo with regard to matter of respondent No. 2 be maintained. The petitioner immediately sent reply to the University on 27.04.2019 alleging that it is undue interference in the Management of the college vide Annexure P/8. It has been further contended that the petitioner has raised protest about the action taken by the University through various applications but it has not been given and as per the Minutes of Meeting of Administrative Committee, a decision was taken on 14.05.2019 for terminating the petitioner from service, vide order dated 15.05.2019 the same has been given effect.
4. It has been further contended that despite objection raised by the petitioner the University vide its notification dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure P/14) has constituted a committee to examine the suspension of respondent No. 2 afresh, despite the facts brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 about termination of service on 15.05.2019 of respondent No. 2 by the petitioner as evident from Annexure P/15 dated 21.08.2019.
Page 4 of 21
5. It has further averred that despite termination order passed on 15.05.2019 the respondent No. 1 vide its memo dated 3010.2019 (Annexure P/16) had directed the petitioner not to give effect to the suspension of respondent No.2 till approval is granted by the Executive Council by the University which was amended on 18.11.2019 (Annexure P/19) and in place of suspension it has been corrected as termination on the count that the termination has not been passed by the governing body and the same will not be given effect till it is approved by the Executive Council. These two orders have been challenged by the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the University has not considered the reply submitted by the college wherein they have narrated the whole incident and the fact of the case has been overlooked by the University and the order has been considered without dealing with submissions raised by them.
7. Respondent No.1 University has filed its return denying the allegation made in the writ petition mainly contending that the order passed by the University strictly in consonance with Chhattisgarh Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and as per College Code - Statue No.28, it is emphatically denied that the university has shown favouritism towards respondent No.2. It has been further contended that three members of enquiry committee has been constituted to look into representation submitted by the respondent No.2. He would further submit that as per statute of 31(3) of the College Code - statute No. 28, removal of service cannot be given effect without approval by the Executive Council. It has been further contended that since termination order has not been Page 5 of 21 approved by the Executive Council, therefore, impugned order dated 03.10.2019 has been issued by the Answering respondent as there is non-compliance of the statutory provision, as such the order passed by the University is legal and justified.
8. Respondent No.2 has filed the separate written denying the allegations contending that the petitioners have not come up with clean hands in pursuance of order passed on 03.10.2019, 22.11.2019 and 18.11.2019, the respondent No.2 has given his joining on 22.11.2019 in the College and this fact has been concealed by them before this Court. It has been further submitted that as per Statue 28, the Management of the college, the Governing body shall be the final authority but it will be bound by the Statute, ordinance regulation and direction of the university and any order passed by the Governing Body which are not in accordance with the Adhiniyam, the Statutes, ordinance and regulations of the university, in such circumstances the respondent No.1 is empowered to pass direction to the petitioner's college to comply with the provisions of the Statute 28. It has been further contended that the termination of any teacher for any reason whatsoever, without the prior approval of the Executive Council is illegal as it is pre-requisite mandatory provision, that the college must take a prior approval from Executive Council before terminating a teacher. It has been further contended that clause 30 of the Statute prescribes that only the appointing authority can impose any penalty to the employee and in case of a teacher of a college, the governing body will be the appointing authority. Since in this case the Statutes have not been complied with, therefore, the university is empowered to pass any order which is legal, justified and does Page 6 of 21 interference by this Court. It has been further contended that petitioner's college vide its letter dated 27.04.2019 has stated that petitioner No.1 will maintain statue quo with respect to the service of respondent No.2 until a final decision has been taken by the Committee constituted by the University, still they have issued termination order dated 14.05.2019, therefore, the University has passed this order. Since Kulpati/chancellor is empowered to pass such order therefore, the order impugned is passed which is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder mainly contending that service of the respondent No. 2 has been terminated under Clause -29 of College Code statue -28 after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and in the enquiry the misconduct has been found proved, as such, approval of Executive Council is not required.
10. The respondent No.2 has filed his written submission reiterating the same stand and also refer to the relevant provisions of Statute No. 28 of College Code and refer to section 15 sub -section 4 of Adhiniyam 1973 which grants emergent power of Kulpati and also refer to sub clause 8 (1)(d) of Statute 28 and would submit that without prior approval from the Executive Council, before terminating respondent No.2 who a teacher has not been taken, therefore, the impugned order is legal and justified. He would further submit that as per clause 29 sub-clause 1 of statute- 28, the service of a teacher cannot be terminated without procedure prescribed under Clause 29 of the Statutes. He would further refer to section 31 for imposing punishment on a teacher and would submit that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in sub-paragraph (1) Page 7 of 21 above other than fine shall be made except in accordance with the procedure for imposing penalties on Government servant prescribed by the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Government and enforce at the time the appointing authority orders an inquiry against the college employee concerned and would submit that a detailed inquiry is contemplated. The present order of termination has been passed without complying with the Act, therefore, the entire action taken by the university is legal, justified and does not warrant interference. In support of his submission, he would refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Sohane vs. State of M.P. 2019(16) SCC 796. He also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Bahadur Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2019) 6 SCC 441 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that prior approval of the Vice Chancellor was mandatory before termination of the appellant. Paragraph 7 of the judgment which reads as under:-
7. The college being affiliated to the University was bound by the provisions of the Act with its attendant consequences for non-compliance.
The college having accepted the order of the Vice-Chancellor and acted upon the same by holding departmental proceedings cannot urge that it is bound by one part of the order and not the other. It cannot have the benefit of the order without complying with its obligations under the order. A bare reading of the statutory provision makes it manifest that prior approval of the Vice- Chancellor was mandatory before termination of the appellant. If the management of the college opined otherwise, it ought to have challenged the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 16.07.2016, if such a challenge was maintainable. Having allowed the order to attain finality, it is not open for the college Page 8 of 21 management to now urge that it was not bound to follow the procedure. The order of termination dated 24.04.2017 being in teeth of Section 35(2) of the Act is patently unsustainable.
11. The University has also filed their written submission reiterating the same stand which they have taken in the written submission. It has also been contended that as per section 15 of the Chhattisgarh Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, the Kulpati/vice chancellor has been entrusted with the power under proviso (2) of the aforesaid section which reads as under;-
Section 15. Powers and duties of Kulpati:- It shall be duty of the Kulpati to ensure that this Act, the Statutes the ordinances and the regulations are faithfully observed and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose. He would further submits that as per section 16 of the general clauses Act 1897 the university has acted in accordance with the law and would submit that the writ petition be allowed.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. From the above stated facts placed on record, this Court has to see whether respondent No.1 has acted in accordance with the M.P./ Chhattisgrh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and Statute -28 framed under the Adhiniyam 1973. To better understanding the issues which are required to be determined by this Court, it is expedient to extract relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1973. The Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to University and to make better provision for the organization and administration of Universities in Chhattisgarh. Page 9 of 21
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 is a college as defined under the Adhiniyam, 1973 and as per Section 23 of Adhiniyam 1973, The Executive Council shall be Executive Body of the University and shall consist of the person as provided under Section 23 of the Adhiniyam 1973 which reads as under:-
(i) the Kulpati;
[(i-a) the Rector];
(ii) four Deans of Faculties nominated by the Kuladhipati;
(iii) three persons elected by single transferable vote by the Court from among its members;
(iv) two Professors of the University Teaching Departments or Schools of Studies to be nominated by the Kuladhipati by rotation according to seniority;
(v) four Principals of affiliated colleges at least two of whom shall be from colleges belonging to the State Government, to be nominated by the Kuladhipati by rotation according to seniority;
(vi) the Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh [Higher] Education Department or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary;
(vii) the Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh, Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary;
[(viii) six persons nominated by the Kuladhipati amongst whom one each shall be a person belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, out of these six persons two shall be women] Provided that-
(a) no salaried employee of any University or any College in Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh shall be eligible for election under item
(b) no person shall be eligible for re-election for a second consecutive term under item (ii) above.
(2) Members of the Executive Council other than ex-officio members shall hold office for a period of three years : Page 10 of 21
Provided that a member of the Executive Council elected under item (iii) of sub-section (1) shall cease to hold office as such member if he ceases to be a member of the Court. (3) Seven members of the Executive Council shall form a quorum :
[Provided that no quorum shall be necessary for adjourned meeting.]
15. From Annexure P/7 dated 25.04.2019 issued by the Registrar of the University, it is quite vivid that the University has not approved the suspension of respondent No.2 and also mentioned about the application submitted by the respondent No.2 alleging his termination and prayer for reinstatement wherein it has also been informed that the University has already constituted a committee and also directed the petitioner to maintain status quo with regard to case of respondent No.2 and in response to the said memo the petitioner has informed the University on 27.04.2019 wherein it has been stated that the decision taken by the University is not the appropriate forum to disagree with the decision taken by the Administrative Committee of the College. It has also been stated that in the letter dated 27.04.2019 it has also been mentioned that there is applications with regard to reinstatement of respondent No.2 but the copy has not been given to the college authority. It has also been stated that as per the view of the administrative committee the present subject matter is not within the domain of the university whereas both the parties were aggrieved with the committee constituted by the University. It has also been stated that the Administrative committee has already submitted reply to the letter dated 29.01.2019 on 22.02.2019 and would pray for taking proper decision.
Page 11 of 21
16. For deciding the controversy raised in this petition it is expedient for this Court to extract clause No. 29, 30 and 31 of the Statute No. 28.
29(1)- The service of a teacher (other than one appointed on temporary or part-time basis or on probation) shall not be terminated after confirmation except on the following grounds and without the approval of the Executive Council :-
(I) Misconduct including willful neglect of duty.
(ii) a Breach of the terms of the contract.
(iii) Physical or mental unfitness.
(iv) Incompetence provided that the plea of incompetence shall not be used against a teacher after two years of his confirmation.
(v) Abolition of the post with the prior approval of the Executive Council.
Provided that termination of service on any ground following under (i) or (iv) above shall not be ordered without holding an inquiry in which the teacher is given a statement of charges against him and is afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself;
Provided also that action to terminate the service of a teacher on the ground of physical or mental unfitness shall not be taken except on the basis of a report of a Medical Board to be appointed by the Governing Body.
(2) Except where the services of a teacher are terminated on the ground of misconduct including neglect of duty or breach of the terms of the contract, neither the Governing Body nor the teacher shall terminate the agreement except by giving to the other party three calendar month's by paying to the other party a sum equal to thrice the monthly salary which the teacher concerned is then earning. The period of notice shall not include the summer vacation or any part thereof.
Part - VII : Suspension, Penalties &
Disciplinary Authority :
Page 12 of 21
30(1) The appointing authority may by an order place an employee, including a teacher of the college under suspension:- (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending.
or
(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
N.B.: In case of teachers the Governing Body and in case of other employees the Principal shall be deemed to be the appointing authority. (2) An employee of the College shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority:- (a) With effect from the date of his detention, if he detained in custody whether on a criminal charge otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours;
(b) With effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.
(3) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the appointing authority, but in cases other than criminal proceedings it shall not operate for more than six months.
(4) During the period of suspension, the employee shall be allowed subsistence allowance equal to fifty percentage of the emoluments last drawn by him.
(5) If the employee is exonerated from the charge or charges are subsequently withdrawn he shall be reinstated in his post and shall be paid full salary for the period of his suspension after deducting the subsistence allowance already paid to him.
Page 13 of 2131(1) The appointing authority may, for good and sufficient reasons, imposed on an employee of the college (including a teacher) the following penalties.
(a) Censure
(b) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the college by negligence or breach of orders;
(c) Withholding of increments of pay;
(d) Reduction of lower time scale of pay, grade or post;
(e) Compulsory retirement;
(f) Removal from services;
(g) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment in the college.
Beside the above, the penalty or fine not exceeding Rupees Five may be imposed on a class IV employee of the college for petty carelessness, unpunctuality, idleness or similar misconduct of a minor nature.
(2) The appointing authority may institute disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the college.
(3) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in sub-paragraph (1) above other than fine shall be made except in accordance with the procedure for imposing penalties on Government servant prescribed by the Madhya Pradesh Government and enforce at the time the appointing authority orders an inquiry against the college employee concerned.
Provided that no proposal to reduce in rank or pay of a teacher confirmed in the service of the college or to remove or dismiss him from service or to retire him compulsorily shall be deemed to have been passed by the Governing Body unless it is supported by a majority of two thirds of the members present at the meeting of the Governing Body in which it comes up for consideration and where a decision is duly Page 14 of 21 taken it shall not be given effect to unless it is approved by the Executive Council.
17. From bare perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, it is quite vivid, that service of a teacher shall not be terminated after confirmation expect for the following ground as enumerated in clause 29. Clause 29(2) provides that Except where the services of a teacher are terminated on the ground of misconduct including neglect of duty or breach of the terms of the contract, neither the Governing Body nor the teacher shall terminate the agreement except by giving to the other party three calendar month's notice or by paying to the other party a sum equal to thrice the monthly salary which the teacher concerned is then earning. The period of notice shall not include the summer vacation or any part thereof. Clause 30 (1) of the Statutes provide that the appointing authority may, for good and sufficient reasons, imposes on an employee of the college (including a teacher) the penalties as enumerated in Clause-30(1). Clause 30 (3) provides that that no proposal to reduce in rank or pay of a teacher confirmed in the service of the college or to remove or dismiss him from service or to retire him compulsorily shall be deemed to have been passed by the Governing Body unless it is supported by a majority of two third of the members present in the meeting of the Governing Body in which it comes up for consideration and where a decision is duly taken and it shall not be given effect to unless it is approved by the Executive Council.
18. Thus from perusal of these clauses of the Statutes, it is quite vivid that the termination from service cannot be given immediate effect without obtaining approval from the Executive Council of the Page 15 of 21 University/respondent No.1. From perusal of impugned order (Annexure P/16 and P/19, it is quite vivid, that the University/respondent No.1 has directed the petitioner to give effect the termination order passed by them but has not given the time period when the matter can be approved or disapproved by the University. The respondent No.1 has also not discharged his responsibility in giving the time schedule to finalize the issue of termination from service of respondent No.2. This also speaks about arbitrariness on the part of respondent No.1. Even from the impugned orders, it is quite vivid that the respondent No.1 has not exercised its power of appeal as provided under the Statute No. 28 which provides filing of appeal against the order of punishment. The statutes No. 32 is extracted below:-
(1) Where any penalty is imposed on an employee of the college by the Principal, the employee concerned may prefer an appeal to the Governing Body of the College within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant.
(2) Where any penalty other than reduction in rank or pay or removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement from service is imposed on a teacher, he may prefer an appeal to the Executive Council within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant.
(3) An appeal against an order of the Governing Body imposing on a teacher, the penalty of reduction in rank or pay or removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement from service shall lie to a Tribunal consisting of Page 16 of 21
(a) A nominee of the Kulpati, other than a member of the Executive Council who will act as the Chairman;
(b) The aggrieved teacher's nominee to be named by the appellant in his appeal, and
(c) A nominee of the Governing Body.
Provided that an appeal under this sub-paragraph shall be submitted to the Kulpati not later than forty five days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant.
(4) The appeal shall, except where provided otherwise, be presented to the authority to whom the appeal lies, a copy being forwarded by the appellant to the authority which made the order appealed against. It shall contain all material statements and arguments on which the appellant relies, shall not contain any disrespectful or improper language and shall be complete in itself. (5) The authority which made the order appealed against shall on receipt of a copy of the appeal, forward the same with its comments thereon together with the relevant records to the appellate authority without any avoidable delay and without waiting for any direction from the appellate authority.
(i) The appellate authority may confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the penalty or remit the case to the authority which imposed the penalty with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(ii) The authority which made the order appealed against shall give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authority.
Page 17 of 21
19. From perusal of the Statutes No. 28, It is evident that the complete mechanism has been provided but the University has adopted the procedure in the garb of power under Section 15(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 whereas a complete mechanism for re-addressal of grievances against the punishment order by filing of appeal has been provided. The return filed by the University does not reflect that they have adopted the procedure under Statute 32 of the Act. But they have reiterated the stand that they have exercised their power under Section 15(2) of the Adhiniyam 1973, when a complete mechanism has been provided for resolving a grievances the action taken by the respondent No.1 cannot be said to be legal and justified. The law has been well settled that when a particular Act provides that the particular thing has to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in the manner which has been provided under the Rule and regulations. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Opto Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank and Others 2021 (6) SCC 707 has held in paragraph 12 and 14, which reads as under:-
12. The action sought to be sustained should be with reference to the contents of the impugned order/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court. This has been succinctly laid down by this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405) as follows;
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its Page 18 of 21 validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:
(1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:
14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what would be a valid presentation of Page 19 of 21 an Election Petition in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder:
"It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner".
Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the Authorised Officer is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute. As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it would fall foul of the requirement of complying due process under law. We have found fault with the Authorised Officer and declared the action bad only in so far as not following the legal requirement before and after freezing the account. This shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the matter and the action initiated against the appellant and its Directors which is a matter to be taken note in appropriate proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the aggrieved party.
20. The respondent No.1 has not followed the procedure provided under the Statue-28 which has statutory force of law and even the record of the case would show that the application submitted by the respondent No.2 has not been given to the petitioner College as the petitioner has written the letter dated 27.04.2019 to the University wherein they have categorically mentioned this fact but this fact has not been rebutted by respondent No.1 and 2. This shows the manner in which the respondent Page 20 of 21 No.1 has acted, when the remedy of appeal is provided under the Statute it is incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to constitute a Tribunal which shall consist of one member to be nominated by the Kulpati, other than a member of the Executive Council who will act as the Chairman of the Tribunal; the aggrieved teacher's nominee to be named by the appellant in the appeal i.e the respondent No.2 and a nominee of the Governing Body of the College, therefore, the orders dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure P/16) and 18.11.2019 (Annexure P/19) deserve to be set aside and the writ petition is allowed with following directions. (I) The University is directed to constitute a tribunal for deciding the appeal of respondent No.2 within 1 month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order after duly intimating the petitioners and the respondent No.2 regarding constitution of Tribunal.
(ii) The Tribunal shall decide the appeal of the respondent No.2 treating the representation which has already been forwarded to the University or if so desired, the respondent No.2 may raise additional ground in the appeal and also amend the representation, if he has already made.
(iii) It is also directed that the Tribunal constituted by the University shall consider the entire material placed by all the parties and thereafter they shall take decision in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondent No.2.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not considered the rival submissions of the parties on the merits of the case. It is also Page 21 of 21 directed that the Tribunal so constituted shall act strictly in accordance with the law and shall make endeavor to decide the appeal within four months from the first hearing of the Tribunal so constituted by the Kulpati of the University.
21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh