Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Prashant Agarwal on 16 August, 2021
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos 4816-4817 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos 12653-12654 of 2021)
(Arising out of SLP(C) D No 2684 of 2020)
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Prashant Agarwal & Ors ....Respondent(s)
WITH
Civil Appeal No 4818 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP(C) No 12655 of 2021)
(Arising out of D No 11464 of 2020)
ORDER
1 Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3. These appeals arise from the judgments of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 24 April 2018 and 19 December 2019 in Writ-A No 30418 of 2013 and Review Application No 17 of 2019, respectively. Signature Not Verified 4 Digitally signed by The fifth respondent, Kisan Degree College, is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Sanjay Kumar Date: 2021.08.19 17:58:54 IST Reason:
Singh University, the second respondent. The College is governed by the provisions of the U P State Universities Act 1973 1, the First Statutes and by 1 “the Act” 2 Government Orders. The College is an aided institute. 5 Elections for the Committee of Management were held on 16 February 2003.
The elections were approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 10 April 2003. Subsequently, on a complaint about the elections, the Vice-Chancellor appointed a five member Enquiry Committee. On the submission of its report, the Vice- Chancellor, by an order dated 5 July 2003, cancelled the order of approval dated 10 April 2003 and directed that fresh elections be held under the supervision of the Assistant Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits. 6 The fifth respondent instituted a writ petition before the High Court, WP 29641 of 2003, to challenge the order of the Vice-Chancellor. By an interim order dated 14 July 2003, the High Court placed the order of the Vice-Chancellor in abeyance and directed that till the writ petition was decided, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall run and manage the affairs of the institution. Eventually, the writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 16 February 2005, by directing that the District Magistrate, who was managing the affairs of the institution, shall continue to do so until elections to the Committee of Management are held.
7 The first respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics on 29 January 1990 on an ad hoc basis and his services were regularized on 20 June 1992. On 25 June 2005, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad authorized the then Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar to perform the duties of an Administrator of the College. On 12 April 2006, the first respondent was placed under suspension pending a disciplinary enquiry. A charge sheet dated 5 May 2006 was issued to the first respondent. The first respondent did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved and submitted a report to the Administrator. After the receipt of the Enquiry Report, 3 the Administrator, by an order dated 29 November 2006, recommended the termination of the first respondent and forwarded the records to the Vice- Chancellor of the University for approval.
8 On 21 September 2007, the State Government exercised powers under Section 58(2) of the Act and superseded the Management of the College. The District Magistrate was appointed as an Authorized Controller for an initial period of six months.
9 The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of on 23 July 2008 by directing that the matter with regard to the disciplinary enquiry against the first respondent shall be considered and disposed of by the Vice-Chancellor of the University expeditiously after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the first respondent and to the Committee of Management. A review petition filed by the first respondent was dismissed on 30 April 2012. The Vice-Chancellor passed an order of approval for terminating the services of the first respondent on 8 March 2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Vice-Chancellor, the first respondent instituted Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 30418 of 2013. 10 The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 24 April 2018, came to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry which was conducted by the Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar was illegal and was without jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order of the Vice- Chancellor and consequential benefits were granted to the first respondent. The first respondent instituted contempt proceedings, being Contempt Application (C) No 2323 of 2019. After the contempt proceedings were disposed of by the High Court on 19 April 2019 with appropriate directions for compliance, the first respondent was reinstated in service in view of the orders of the High Court. The 4 review application before the High Court was thereafter dismissed on 19 December 2019.
11 Two Special Leave Petitions have been filed before this Court by the State of Uttar Pradesh and by the Committee of Management. Mr Hitesh Biherani, appears on behalf of the third and fourth respondents in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No 12655 of 2021 and waives service. Counsel for the contesting parties are present and have been heard.
12 At this stage, it may also be noted that it has come on the record that the Committee of Management, by its communication dated 21 May 2019 to the Higher Education Directorate, clarified that it was reinstating the first respondent in compliance with the order of the High Court though the Managing Committee of the College had come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the first respondent had been duly proved.
13 Mr Sanjay Kumar Tyagi has urged that the basis of the judgment of the High Court is that an Authorized Controller appointed under Section 58(2) of the Act had no power to further delegate its functions. However, the submission is that the disciplinary proceedings had taken place much prior to the order dated 21 September 2007 appointing an Authorized Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act. It has been urged that since the Collector had been appointed to run the institution pending the writ proceedings by the High Court, there was no jurisdictional error in the Collector appointing the Deputy Collector to carry on the day to day activities.
14 On the other hand, Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, submitted that the enquiry against the first respondent was held ex parte and the notice of the enquiry was not received by him. That apart, it has been urged that the Collector had been appointed by the order of 5 the High Court, and it was not open to him to nominate the Deputy Collector to exercise the functions which had been entrusted to him by the High Court. 15 The entire basis of the judgment of the High Court is that the Authorized Controller who had been appointed by the State Government on 21 September 2007 under Section 58(2) of the Act could not have delegated the powers. The High Court observed that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad having been appointed as an Authorized Controller, no power of delegation was vested in him under which he could have appointed the Deputy Collector as the Authorized Controller. The High Court observed that there was no power in the Collector and District Magistrate to delegate his statutory functions under Section 58 of the Act to another person as an Authorized Controller and, hence, the disciplinary proceedings were held to be vitiated. The High Court, however, observed that while the first respondent would be entitled to consequential benefits, this will not preclude the competent authority from proceeding afresh in accordance with law.
16 The sole ground which weighed with the High Court in allowing the writ petition was the hypothesis that upon the appointment of the Collector and District Magistrate as an Authorized Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act on 21 September 2007, no power of further delegation was entrusted to him. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings were set aside by holding that the proceedings which were initiated by the Deputy Collector were without jurisdiction. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated much prior to the appointment of the Collector as an Authorized Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act. The narration of facts indicates that the High Court had, in the course of the writ proceedings challenging the order of the Vice- Chancellor recalling the approval granted to the elections, ordered on 14 July 2003, as an interim measure, that till the writ petition is decided the District 6 Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall run and manage the affairs of the institution. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 16 February 2005 by continuing the interim arrangement and by directing that the District Magistrate shall continue to do so until fresh elections are held. 17 The disciplinary enquiry was concluded much prior to the appointment of the Collector as an Authorized Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act. After the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the record was forwarded to the Vice- Chancellor for approval. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption. The basis on which the disciplinary proceedings have been held to be without jurisdiction is flawed. 18 Since the High Court has not dealt with the other challenges which may have been addressed on behalf of the first respondent in the writ proceedings, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to remand the proceedings back to the High Court for a fresh decision of the writ petition. All the rights and contentions of the parties in the challenges which may be raised by the first respondent to the validity of the disciplinary enquiry are accordingly kept open. To facilitate a fresh decision, the impugned orders of the High Court dated 24 April 2018 and 19 December 2019 are set aside and Writ-A 30418 of 2013 is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration.
19 Since the writ petition is of 2013, the High Court is requested to expedite the disposal of the petition preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
20 The first respondent has been reinstated in pursuance of the contempt proceedings. The reinstatement of the first respondent shall abide by the final result of the writ petition. The question of arrears of salary, if any, shall depend upon the ultimate outcome of the writ petition and final directions that may be 7 issued by the High Court.
21 The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
22 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
…………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [M R Shah] New Delhi;
August 16, 2021
-S-
8
ITEM NO.3 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).2684/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-04-2018 in WA No. 30418/2013 and 19-12-2019 in RA No. 17/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRASHANT AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.29313/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.29316/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) WITH Diary No(s). 11464/2020 (XI) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.71578/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.71580/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.71581/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.71579/2020- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 16-08-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR Mr. Nagendra Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR
Mr. Devesh Agnihotri, Adv.
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
Mr. Hitesh Biherani , Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
9
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3 The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. 4 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)