Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 May, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5780/2022
Ghanshyam Singh Rathore S/o Shri Narendra Singh Rathore,
Aged About 58 Years, 7 Ganpati Nagar-Z, Bohra Ganeshji Main
Road, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Through Its
Registrar, M.l.s.u., Campus, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha.
Mr. L.S.Udawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with
Mr. Kailash Choudhary.
Mr. G.R.Punia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Punia &
Mr. Jai Naveen.
Mr. Himanshu Shrimali.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 26/05/2022 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 14/4/2022 (Annex.14), whereby, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the order has been passed under the directions of the Vice Chancellor, who has no jurisdiction in this regard as the jurisdiction lies with the Board of Management.
(Downloaded on 26/05/2022 at 08:52:56 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-5780/2022] Further submissions have been made that suspension can take place only under Statute 50 Part VII Clause 72 for which the conditions enumerated therein are not fulfilled.
Submissions have also been made that the Vice Chancellor has merely acted on the dictate of the State and has not applied his independent mind while passing the order dated 13/4/2022 (Annex.R/3).
Submissions have also been made that the allegation against the petitioner, essentially does not pertain to any performance of duties while working as Head of the Department of the University and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard being wholly without jurisdiction, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Reply, additional affidavit etc. have been filed by the State as well as respondents opposing the plea.
Submissions have been made that the Vice Chancellor has emergency/emergent power under the Statute and that the power has rightly been exercised looking to the grave misconduct committed by the petitioner.
Further submissions have been made that the petitioner cannot claim that the misconduct has been committed by him while working outside the employment of the University, therefore, he cannot be proceeded against for such misconduct by the University and, therefore, the petition has no substance.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Insofar as the challenge laid to the power of Vice Chancellor to issue the order impugned is concerned, prima facie in view of provisions of Section 11 (18) and 12(6) of the Mohanlal Sukhadia (Downloaded on 26/05/2022 at 08:52:56 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-5780/2022] University Act, 1962, in case where immediate action is called for/in case of emergency, the Vice Chancellor does have the power.
As to whether, the present case would fall within the said category would require consideration.
The note sheet dated 13/4/2022, which has formed basis for passing of the order dated 14/4/2022 (Annex.14) reads as under:
"jkT; ljdkj ds i= fn- 13-04-22 rFkk 08-04-22 ds vuqikyuk esa izcU/k eaMy ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa ds ijke'kZ ,oa cksMZ dh vkxkeh cSBd esa vuqeksnu ds izR;k'kk esa izks- th- ,l- jkBkSj dks fnukad 13-04-22 ls fuyafcr fd;k tkrk gSA fuyacu vof/k esa izks- jkBkSM+ fo- foKku egk- esa viuh mifLFkfr lqfuf'pr djsaxsA vf/k"Bkrk in dk nkf;Ro bl vof/k esa izks- ,u- y{eh fuoZgu djsaxhA Sd@& 13-04-22 Prof. Amarika Singh Vice Chancellor"
A perusal of the note sheet would indicate that the Vice Chancellor has indicated that pursuant to the letters of the State Govt. dated 13/4/2022 and 8/4/2022 in contemplation of approval of the Board of Management the petitioner was being suspended.
There is apparently no reference to the decision in relation to initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
The order impugned dated 14/4/2022 (Annex.14) reads as under:
"jktLFkku ljdkj ds i= Øekad ia- 03 ¼13½ f'k{kk&4@ 2021 ikVZ t;iqj] fnukad 8 vizsy] 2022 ,oa Lej.k i= ia- 03 ¼13½ f'k{kk&4@ 2021 ikVZ fnukad 13 vizsy 2022 esa izksQslj ?ku';ke flag jkBkSM+] foKku ladk;k/;{k] eksguyky lq[kkfM+;k fo'ofo|ky;] mn;iqj ij xaHkhj vkjksi yxk;s x;s gSA izks- jkBkSM+ ds mYysf[kr d`R; vR;Ur gh xaHkhj izd`fr ds gSaA mu ij jkT; ljdkj dks xyr rF; izLrqr dj xaHkhj ykijokgh cjrus dk vkjksi gS] vr% ftldh fo'ofo|ky; Lrj ij tkap vuq/;kr (contemplated) gSA mi;qZDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk xfBr lR;kiu lfefr dh lnL;rk dk nq:i;ksx dj lgh rF;ksa dks fNikdj dkuwuh izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, feF;k lR;kiu fjiksVZ rS;kj dj jkT; ljdkj dks izLrqr djus ds Øe esa tkap vuq/;kr (contemplated) gksus ls eksguyky lq[kkfM+;k fo'ofo|ky; mn;iqj ds vf/kfu;e 1962 ,oa blds v/khu cuk;s x;s ifjfu;e 50 ds ikVZ&VII Øekad 72 ,oa vU; lacaf/kr fu;eksa@ izko/kkuks ds rgr izksQslj ?ku';ke flag jkBkSM+] vkpk;Z] xf.kr ,o lkaf[;dh foHkkx] (Downloaded on 26/05/2022 at 08:52:56 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-5780/2022] fo'ofo|ky; foKku egkfo|ky;] eksguyky lq[kkfM+;k fo'ofo|ky;] mn;iqj dks rRdky izHkko ls fuyfEcr fd;k tkrk gSA fuyacu vof/k ds nkSjku Jh ?ku';ke flag jkBkSM+ dks fu;ekuqlkj fuokZg HkRrk feysxk vkSj mUgsa viuh mifLFkfr vf/k"Bkrk] fo'ofo|ky; foKku egkfo|ky;] mn;iqj dks nsuh gksxhA ;g vkns'k dqyifr egksn;] eksguyky lq[kkfM+;k fo'ofo|ky; mn;iqj }kjk vuqeksfnr gSA Sd/-
dqy lfpo"
In the said order signed by the Registrar, a reference has been made of contemplated inquiry. The said order dated 14/4/2022 prima facie is beyond the indication made in the note sheet of the Vice Chancellor dated 13/4/2022 (supra), which as noticed hereinbefore, does not indicate any contemplated inquiry.
Provisions of Rule 72 providing for suspension inter alia reads as under:
"72. Suspension (i) The appointing authority or any other authority empowered by the Committee/Vice Chancellor in that behalf may place any teacher under suspension:
(a) Where disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending; or
(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence has resulted in arrest of conviction."
A perusal of the above provisions would reveal that a Teacher can inter alia be placed under suspension where disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or pending.
As admittedly, the Vice Chancellor has not indicated any contemplation of inquiry before taking a decision to place the petitioner under suspension and he has passed the order only in compliance of the directions of the State and the order has been passed by the Registrar by going beyond the note sheet dated 13/4/2022 (supra) by indicating 'contemplated inquiry', prima facie the requirements of Rule 72 are not fulfilled.
In view of the above, the matter requires consideration. (Downloaded on 26/05/2022 at 08:52:56 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-5780/2022] Admit. Issue notice. As Mr. Rajesh Punia, Mr. Manish Vyas and Mr. Himanshu Shrimali have already put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, no need to issue fresh notices.
Additional reply, if any, may be filed by the respondents. Heard on stay application.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the effect and operation of the order dated 14/4/2022 (Annex.14) shall remain stayed.
Stay application stands disposed of.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 244-baweja/-
(Downloaded on 26/05/2022 at 08:52:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)