Chattisgarh High Court
Subir Sen vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2951 of 2022
Dr. Durga Sharan Chandra S/o Shri I. L. Chandra, Aged About 51 Years, R/o D - 259,
Rama Green City Khamtarai, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, To The Govt. Of Chhattisgarh
Department Of Higher Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S.
Rakhi, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Governing Body (Constituted under Statute 28 of College Code of C.G.
Vishwavidyalaya Adhinium 1973 of D.P. Vipra College) Through The Secretary to the
Governing Body Office of Principal, D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
3. The Principal D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. The Inquiry Officer D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 2988 of 2022
Subir Sen S/o Shri R.B. Sen, Aged About 60 Years R/o 17/361, Sarju Bagicha, Azad Nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary To the Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Higher Education Mantrtalaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur PS Rakhi, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Governing Body (Constituted under Statute 28 of College Code of C.G. vishwavidyalay Adhinium 1973 of D.P. Vipra College) Through The Secretary to the Governing Body Office of Principal, D.P.Vipra College Old Higher Court Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Principal D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur Chhattigarh.
4. The Inquiry Officer D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents 17/06/2022 Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R.M. Solapurkar and Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocates for the State. Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. Raza Ali and Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocates for respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
Both these petitions have been brought praying to quash the resolution of the order dated 16-02-2022 and also to quash the charge sheet dated 10-01-2022 along with entire proceeding of the departmental enquiry.
Heard on the applications for grant of interim relief filed in both these petitions. By way of interim relief it is prayed that order be passed to maintain the status quo as present on 16-02-2022.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis that both the petitioners were appointed in exercise of the power under the Statute 28 of the College Code which regulates appointment, suspension, punishment of the teachers of the colleges, therefore, C.G. Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are applicable.
The petitioners have been removed from the post of Asst. Professor by the impugned order dated 17-02-2022, which mentions about resolution dated 16-02-2022 passed by the Administration Committee. According to the Statute itself, there was requirement for approval of executive council before passing any order of termination. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was served upon the petitioners by the Principal, that is, respondent No.3, who was not the appointing authority. No documents were supplied despite various demands made by the petitioners and without holding any proper enquiry, without recording of evidence and without serving any enquiry report upon the petitioners the impugned order has been passed.
Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 and in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh, 2008 AIR SCW 7507 and it is prayed that interim protection be granted as prayed.
Learned counsel for the State representing respondent No.1 opposes the submission.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2, 3 and 4 submits that the petitioners are seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution against respondents No.2, 3 and 4 who were not State under the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution. The second objection is this, that the College Code of M.P. is not applicable in the State of C.G. It is submitted that the petitioners have not directly challenged their termination of services and apart from that, the petitioners are praying for interim relief, status quo and stay which cannot be granted. The petitioners were supplied with charge sheet and the petitioners have deliberately avoided to file reply on various pretext. Therefore, the enquiry was concluded in accordance with law and both the petitioners have been terminated. Hence, the interim relief applications may be rejected.
In rebuttal it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against respondents No.2, 3 and 4. It is further submitted that College Code, statute 28 is applicable as it was a Code prior to the formation of State of Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that it has been decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh Vs. A.L. Pandey and another, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 713, in which it has been held that College Code creates legal rights in favour of the teachers of the affiliated colleges. Hence, for the reason that the College Code and the statute has not been followed in the enquiry against the petitioners the whole proceeding has vitiated. Hence, interim relief be granted.
The respondent side has raised a debateable issue that respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 did not fall under the definition of State. Secondly, the enquiry initiated against the petitioners has also been completed and on the basis of which resolution dated 16- 02-2022, order of removal of the petitioners from the post of Asst. Professor had already been passed on 17-02-2022. The prayer of the petitioners by way of interim relief is in fact would be in the nature of final relief and the same is not the status quo as present today, therefore, I do not feel inclined to allow these applications for interim relief, hence, the same are rejected.
The respondents are granted time to file reply.
List both these cases after four weeks.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil