Patna High Court
Chandra Deo Prasad Verma vs The Vice-Chancellor Of Magadh ... on 8 May, 1970
Equivalent citations: AIR1971PAT294, AIR 1971 PATNA 294
JUDGMENT K.B.N. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing a resolution of the Syndicate of the Magadh University dated the 17th May, 1969 (Annexure '4') suspending the Governing Body of the G. J. College, Rambagh, and annulling the order of suspension of the Principal of the College (Respondent No. 5), passed by the Governing Body, and suspending the Governing Body and appointing an ad hoc committee in its place.
2. The petitioner, in the writ application, claimed to be the founder Secretary of the G. J. College, Rambagh, Bihta, in the District of Patna (hereinafter referred to as the College), and to be a member of the Governing Body, nominated by the Syndicate of the Magadh University, whose term of office as a member of the Governing Body is to be valid up to May, 1971. The College was established in 1958 and admitted to the then Bihar University in the year 1959. Subsequently, when the Magadh University came into existence, it was affiliated to the latter University. It is averred in the application that on the 19th April, 1969, an emergent meeting of the Governing Body was held to consider the present affairs of the College and the petitioner informed the Governing Body, as per his written report (Annexure '1'), about serious lapses on the part of the Principal Awadhesh Kumar Sinha (Respondent No. 5), which had caused serious deterioration in the administration of the College.
It was alleged by the petitioner that the Principal indulged in mismanagement of the affairs of the college, permanent and temporary misappropriation and unauthorised diversification of funds, falsification and suppression of accounts, criminal breach of trust and insubordination, besides putting obstructions in supervision and control over the College funds by the Governing Body. The Principal also violated the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Rules of the University in running the administration of the College. The Governing Body, at the said meeting, found strong prima facie case for impartial enquiry against the conduct of the Principal and it passed orders for suspension of the Principal with immediate effect, pending enquiry against him, and constituted a sub-committee of three members to hold the enquiry into the allegations against the Principal (vide Annexure '2'). The suspension order was served on the Principal on the 19th April, 1969, itself, who handed over only one volume of the proceeding book to the Principal Incharge appointed by the Governing Body, namely, Shree Bacha Prasad Sinha.
3. On the 20th April, 1969, the petitioner informed the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh University by a telegram about the suspension of the Principal and also alleged that the Principal had disappeared from the headquarters without obtaining permission and without handing over charge, and also wrote a letter in this regard. On the 2nd May. 1969, charges were framed against the Principal by the Governing Body on the basis of scrutiny of the records and files so far available, and he was also informed that supplementary charges would be framed after further records were available. It is alleged in the writ application that the Principal was, in the meantime, pursuing his unlawful activities and was not handing over charge of the records to the Principal Incharge and the Magadb University took no step to help the Governing Body in the matter. Surprisingly, on the 20th May, 1969, the petitioner received a copy of a letter of the Registrar, Magadh University (Annexure '3'), addressed to the Sub-divisional Officer, Dina-pore, along with a copy of the impugned resolution of the Syndicate of the University (Annexure '4)' dated the 17th May, 1969 suspending the Governing Body under Article 3 (2) of the Magadh University Statutes, and appointing an ad hoc committee consisting of the following persons:--
1. The Sub-divisional Officer (Civil), Dinapore--Convener.
2. Dr. S. P. N. Puri, Budhauli House, Murarpur, Gaya.
3. Sri B. N. Rawat, Head of the Department of Philosophy, H. D. Jain College, Arrah.
4. Sri Gupteshwar Prasad Singh, Vice-Principal, B. S. College, Dinapore, Patna.
5. Sri Kunj Behari Singh, Principal, A. S. College, Bikramganj.
4. The petitioner has averred that on enquiry he has learnt that the aforesaid resolution of the Syndicate was passed" on the basis of a report of Shree Bishwanath Singh, University Representative, on the Governing Body of the College, which report has been filed as Annexure '5'. It is alleged that the suspended Principal (Respondent No. 5) has, in fact, "exercised undue influence over the dominant section of the members of the Syndicate with the help of his close friend, Shree Bishwanath Singh," and has been instrumental in getting the impugned resolution (Annexure '4') passed to save his skin. The report of the University Representative dated the 25th April, 1969 (Annexure '5') has been characterised as an untruthful account of the affairs of the College and has been challenged in various respects in a number of Paragraphs of the writ application, which, it is not necessary to refer to in detail.
The petitioner has also averred that the University has acted improperly in annulling the resolution of the Governing Body, without scrutinising the records of the College, otherwise its decision would have been different. It is also averred that the Syndicate of the University had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned resolution, suspending the Governing Body of the College, as there was no specific agenda in this regard, and as none of the conditions laid down in Article 3 (1) and 3(2) of the Statutes (Chapter XIII), was attracted.
5. The petitioner filed a representation against the impugned resolution on the 16th August, 1969, before the Chancellor of the Magadh University, but the Chancellor, by an order dated the 23rd September, 1969 (Annexure '6'), has refused to interfere, as a civil suit has been filed in the court of the Munsif by Shree Surya Saran Upadhaya, a member of the suspended Governing Body, more or less on the same grounds, as mentioned in the petitioner's representation before the Chancellor, as also an appeal has been taken to the High Court, observing that the petitioner's "representation does not call for any intervention by the Chancellor at this stage".
The fact of the filing of Title Suit No. 121 of 1969 by Shree Surya Saran Upadhaya, a member of the Governing Body, challenging the impugned resolution of the Syndicate of the Magadh University, is admitted by the petitioner in the writ application, but, he has asserted that he is not a party to the suit. After the filing of the suit, the Munsif of Patna rejected the prayer for injunction on the 30th June, 1969, and an appeal therefrom was dismissed by the District Judge (vide Annexure 'A-2'), against which Civil Revn. No. 833 of 1969 was filed, which was pending when this writ application was filed and has since been dismissed.
6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 and another counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 5, denying the various allegations made against them in the writ application and justifying the impugned resolution of the Syndicate of the University. The petitioner has also filed affidavits in reply to the above-mentioned counter-affidavits.
7. Mr. B. C. Ghose, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that no action could be taken by the Syndicate against the resolution of the Governing Body suspending the Principal, as the Governing Body is fully competant to suspend the Principal. Ho referred to Chapter XIII of the Statutes of the Magadh University, framed under Section 27 of the Magadh University Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Statutes). It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the Statutes framed by the Bihar Universitv are relevant statutes, which have been adopted under the Ma-gadh University Act. Article 1 of Chapter XIII of the Statutes lays down that every admitted college shall comply with and duly observe the provisions of the laws of the University in so far as they apply to the affiliated colleges.
It is also an admitted position that the college in question is an affiliated college of the Magadh University, to which Chapter XIII of the Statutes applies. Article 2 of the Statutes provides that every admitted college shall be under the management of a Governing Body constituted in accordance with the provisions laid down under Article 2(2). Under Article 2(11), it is provided that the proceedings of all meetings of the Governing Body of every admitted college with a copy of the agenda shall be forwarded to the University by the Secretary within a fortnight of the meeting. Article 2 (12), which is relevant, reads thus:--
"The Syndicate may, by an order in writing annul any proceeding of the Governing: Body of a College which is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the Regulations or the Rules of the University."
Under Clause (12) Article 2, of Chapter XIII of the Statutes, therefore, the Syndicate has power to annul proceedings of the Governing Body of a College, which is not in conformity with the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the Regulations or the Rules of the University. Mr. Ghose has submitted that there is no violation of the Statutes, Ordinances or any Rules of the University, so as to justify the Syndicate annulling the proceedings of the Governing Body. This brings us to the consideration of the relevant provisions of the Statutes or the Rules of the University, because, it is an admitted position that there is no question of violation of the Ordinances or the Regulations of the University, which do not provide for these matters.
8. Article 4 of the Statutes lays down that the Governing Body of every admitted college shall adopt the Model Rules of Business framed by the University with such modifications as may be deemed necessary, provided the modifications so made shall not be effective unless approved by the Syndicate. A copy of the Model Rules of Business has been filed as Annexure 'D' to the counter-affidavit. It is asserted in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit of the University that the aforesaid rules have been adopted by the Governing Body of the college by its resolution dated the 8th December, 1968, which has not been denied in the reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is also asserted on behalf of the respondents in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit that from the report of the University Representative it was apparent that the meeting of the Governing Body dated the 19th April, 1969, was held in violation of Rules 6 and 8 of the Model Rules of Business, and the action at this meeting against the Principal had been taken arbitrarily.
9. As already stated, it has not been disputed that the Model Rules of Business framed by the Syndicate of the Magadh University have been adopted by the College, and a, question arises, whether there has been any violation Mr. Ghose has submitted that the contravention of the Model Rules, if any, is not a contravention of the Statutes, and, therefore, the Syndicate's resolution that there has been a contravention of the Rules and Statutes, is without any basis. I do not think, there is any substance in this submission of the learned counsel. In the first instance, these Model Rules of Business have been framed by the Syndicate. Article 4 of the Statutes makes it obligatory on every admitted College to adopt the Model Rules of Business. In the instant case, it is not disputed that as the Model Rules of Business had been adopted under Article 4 of the Statutes, these rules are valid rules, binding on the Governing Body under the Statutes and their violation is really violation of the Statutes, read with the rules so adopted.
Mr. Ghose, in this regard, has also urged that there has been no violation of the Model Rules of Business. This question now falls for consideration, so as to justify the Syndicate's annulling the resolution of the Governing Body dated the 19th April, 1969. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the University that the Rules of Business require that along with the notice of a meeting, an agenda of the meeting must be circulated, and that the meeting of the Governing Body being an 'emergent' meeting and there being no agenda for any action against the Principal in the said emergent meeting, the Governing Body was not competent, under proviso to Rule 8, to take up the question of suspension of the Principal. He also referred to Rule 6, and said that no memorandum on the subject of agenda accompanied the notice of the meeting in question.
10. Rule 6 and the relevant portion of Rule 8 of the Model Rules of Business, may be quoted:--
"6. The Secretary shall issue, along with the notice for a meeting, the agenda for that meeting, and in case it is an ordinary or a requisitioned meeting, also a copy of the minutes of the previous meeting or meetings and each item on the agenda shall be accompanied by a memorandum on the subject."
"8. The following shall be the order of the business at a meeting of the Governing Body:--
XX XX XX (x) Other items as placed on the agenda; (xi) Additional items, if any. with the sanction of House:
Provided that in case of a requisitioned meeting the business for which the meeting has been requisitioned shall be given priority over all other business, except mentioned in (i) to (iv) above and in case of emergent meeting, no business other than that for which the meeting has been convened shall be taken up.
Provided further that a change in the order of the business at a meeting of the Governing Body may be taken up but it shall not affect the order as laid down in (i) to fv) above."
11. A reference to the aforesaid rules would show that along with the notice of a meeting the agenda for that meeting shall be issued and in case of an ordinarv or a requisitioned meeting a copy of the minutes of the previous meeting or meetings and also a memorandum on the subject of the agenda shall accompany the notice. Proviso to Rule 8 clearly provides that in case of an emergent meeting, no business other than that for which the meeting has been convened shall be taken. This brings us to the notice and the agenda of the meeting dated the 19th April, 1969, which has been filed as Annexure 'C' to the counter-affidavit of the respondents.
Item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the agenda are clearly not on the point. Item No. 3 of the agenda mentions "College Ki Bart-man Sthiti Par Vichar" (consideration of the present position of the College). Obviously, this item cannot have reference to there being any agenda for taking any action against the Principal. An agenda for considering the present position or affairs of the College is not an agenda for considering the conduct of the Principal or for taking any action against him. Therefore, the resolution of the Governing Body suspending the Principal, which was not an item on the agenda, is in clear violation of the proviso to Rule 8.
12. Mr. Ghose has submitted that the agenda in question was wide enough to include the suspension of the Principal. In my opinion, for taking a drastic action against the head of an institution, there should have been a specific agenda to that effect and that matter could not have been brought in under Item No. 3, inasmuch as the affairs of the college may not necessarily include the conduct of the Principal. The agenda was not accompanied with a memorandum on the subject for Item No. 3, or for any other item, from which it could be gathered that the matter was covered by Item No. 3 of the agenda even by implication. In that state of affairs, the Syndicate of the University cannot be said to have committed any error in taking that view of the matter, so as to warrant the quashing of the resolution of the Syndicate (Annexure '4'), annulling the proceedings of the Governing Body dated the 19th April. 1969. It is true that the Governing Body has power to suspend, but that power has to be exercised in conformity with the rules and the statutes. It was open to the University to quash the resolution of the Governing Body for contravention of the Statutes and the Rules of Business of the Governing Body.
13. Mr. Ghose has next urged that the impugned resolution of the Syndicate suspending the Governing Body of the College, without a show-cause notice, was in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also urged that the impugned resolution of the Syndicate, annulling the proceedings of the Governing Body and suspending the Governing Body was mala fide, having been passed under the influence of respondent No. 5, the suspended Principal, and his associate Shree Bishwanath Singh, the University Representative.
14. It will be relevant to refer to clauses (1) and (2) of Article 3, Chapter XIII. of the Statutes, dealing with suspension and dissolution of the Governing Body:--
"3 (1) The Syndicate may, on its motion or at the instance of Vice-Chancellor, dissolve and order reconstitution of the Governing Body for any one or more of the following reasons;
(a) that the College has failed to comply with the direction issued by the Syndicate under the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the Regulations and the Rules of the University, within the specified time;
(b) that the College has failed to observe the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the Regulations, or the Rules of the University;
(c) that there has been improper utilisation of the various funds of the institution;
(d) that the affairs of the College have been grossly mismanaged;
Provided, however, that such order or orders shall be passed by the Syndicate against the Governing Body, only after the expiry of a period of 60 days from the date of a notice to show cause to the Governing Body against such order or orders and the failure of the Governing Body to show cause within the period specified above or to render satisfactory explanation.
(2) The Syndicate, in cases where immediate measure is considered expedient in the interest of the College after recording the reasons, may suspend Governing Body for a total period not exceeding one year."
Clause (3) lays down that the Syndicate will give facilities to the members of the suspended Governing Body to consult records to file show cause against dissolution of the Governing Body under clause (1). Clause (4) lays down that the Syndicate wil, in case of suspension or dissolution, appoint an ad-hoc committee to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Governing Body until the expiry of the period of suspension or the re-constitution of the Governing Body in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 2(2) of the Statutes.
15. From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the Syndicate has power under Clause (2) of Article 3 of the Statutes to suspend the Governing Body, in case it proposes to proceed under Article 3 (1), if the situation so requires. But the period of suspension should not exceed one year and the Syndicate will appoint an ad-hoc committee under Article 3(4) to discharge the functions of the Governing Body during the period of suspension.
16. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner had informed the Vice-Chancellor on the 19th April, 1969, by a wire and also wrote a letter informing him about the suspension and the disappearance of the Principal from the headquarters without permission. Presumably, referring to this letter, on the 26th April, 1969. the Deputy Registrar of the Magadh University wrote a letter (Anncxure 'E') requesting the petitioner to send the relevant resolution of the Governing Body, along with other papers, regarding suspension of the Principal. A day earlier, i.e., on the 25th April, 1969, the University Representative also submitted a detailed report (copies of which are Annexures '5' and '8'), to the University, regarding the acts of omission and commission of the Governing Body and the concluding portion of the report reads thus:--
"From the facts mentioned above, it will be apparent that the affairs of the college have been awfully mismanaged, that the provisions of the Act and the Statutes of the University have been seriously disregarded and contravened, and even the ordinary democratic procedure have not been observed in the conduct of the G. B. meeting. And if proper steps, however unpleasant, are not taken in time by the University, I am afraid, there will be nothing like the rule of law left in the G. J. College, Rambagh, Bihta."
The Syndicate, in its meeting held on the 17th May 1969, passed the impugned resolution, a portion of which may be usefully quoted:--
(b) Considered the question of suspension of Sri A. K. Sinha, Principal, G. J. College, Rambagh, Bihta, Patna, along with the report of the University Representative, the representation of Sri A. K. Sinha and the report of the Secretary of the College dated 19-4-1969 (Appendix XVII).
Resolved--that in view of the gross violation of the Rules of business of its meeting by the Governing Bodv of G. J, College, Rambagh, Bihta, and other irre-
gularities pointed out in the report of the University Representative, the proceeding of the emergent meeting dated 19-4-1969 of the Governing Body of the said College containing the resolution for suspension of Sri A. K. Sinha, Principal of the College (vide resolution on item No. 3 of the agenda) be annulled. Resolved also -- that since the college has failed to observe the provisions of the Act, the Statutes as revealed by the report of the University Representative, the Governing Body of the G. J. College, Rambagh, Bihta, be suspended with immediate effect under the provisions as laid down in Article 3 (2) of the Magadh University Statutes.
XX XX XX"
The Syndicate appointed an ad-hoc committee and further resolved that all the relevant and necessary documents of the college be seized immediately and the funds of the college be operated upon by respondents 6 and 10 jointly.
17. It is thus apparent that the Syndicate of the University passed the aforesaid resolution after taking into account the report of the University Representative, the representation of Respondent No. 5 and the report of the Secretary (Petitioner) dated the 19th April, 1969, for failure on the part of the Governing Body to observe the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, as revealed by the University Representative. From the counter-affidavit (paragraph 47) of the University also it appears that in view of the filing of a title suit and hearing of the injunction matter, the Syndicate could not finalise the charges against the Governing Body to show-cause as required under Article 3 (1) of the Statutes and as the matter had become sub judice in this writ application, no further proceedings could be taken, though the Syndicate decided to communicate the charges against the Governing Body.
18. The power of the Syndicate to suspend the Governing Body has, however, not been challenged by Mr. Ghose. What he has urged is that there should be a show-cause notice. There is no provision in the Statutes for a show-cause notice before suspending a Governing Body under Article 3 (2). Although for dissolution of the Governing Body, a show-cause notice is required under Article 3 (1) of the Statutes. In such a situation, the question of issuing a show-cause notice before suspension does not arise. The wordings of Article 3 (2) also show that where immediate measure is considered expedient, the Syndicate may suspend the Governing Body.
This also suggests that no show-cause notice is required before suspending a Governing Body. Therefore, the Syndicate, in my view, has committed no illegality in suspending the Governing Body, without issuing a show-cause notice and no principle of natural justice seems to have been violated. The Syndicate has recorded reasons for suspension and, as already pointed out, has passed the impugned resolution after considering the report of the University Representative, the representation of the suspended Principal, as also after considering the report from the petitioner.
19. As for the submission of Mr. Ghose that the order of suspension of the Governing Body and annulment of its proceedings was a mala fide one and passed by the Syndicate as a result of undue, influence exerted by the Principal in collusion with the University Representative, it does not bear scrutiny. The substance of the allegation is that Respondent No. 5 "exercised undue influence over the dominant section of the members of the Syndicate with the help of his close friend Bishwanath Singh, the University Representative, and has been instrumental in getting the aforesaid resolution dated 17-5-69 passed by the Syndicate to save hi? skin." It is alleged that earlier the University Representative did not complain of any illegality or irregularity and the entire report was motivated, as he did not record any note of dissent, when the resolution of the Governing Body suspending the Principal was passed and his report is not truthful.
20. The University Representative has not been made party to this writ application, nor the other members of the Syndicate. The University Representative in his report (a copy of which has been filed as Annexure '5') has stated that he seriously opposed the action of suspension being taken against the Principal without any agenda, but his objections went unheeded and the Secretary (petitioner) observed that this had to be done and took out a typed draft resolution, running in several pages and handed over the same to Shree Basha Prasad Singh. who began to dictate the draft which the Secretary took down. He requested the Secretary to permit him to go through the same, so that he might be able to know the resolution and give his dissenting opinion, but he was asked by the Secretary to note the same on a separate sheet of paper, to which he did not agree. He has also mentioned that the Governing Body was still without a President, minutes of the proceedings were not sent to the University.
Vacancies in the Governing Body were not reported to the University, no report was made against Shree Shyamnandan Singh, who had not attended four consecutive meetings of the Governing Body, in spite of the report by the Principal, illegally Shree Bacha Prasad Singh was continued as Bursar and illegal appointments were made of temporary teachers, Shree S. K. Sinha was not allowed to join his post, in spite of his appointment on the recommendation of the Service Commission with a view to allow his (Secretary) own men to continue illegally as temporary lecturers, etc. The allegation of mala fide has been strongly refuted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4. Respondent No. 5 along with his counter-affidavit, has filed two letters (Annexures 'B-1' and 'B-2'), pointing out the violations of the orders of the University. By Annexure 'B-1' dated the 25th May, 1968, the Vice-Chancellor of the University disapproved of inviting Shree Bacha Prasad Singh to attend the meetings of the Governing Body as special invitee. By Annexure 'B-2' of September, 1968, the Deputy Registrar of the University pointed out the irregularity and illegality in continuance of teachers on a temporary basis in contravention of the Statutes.
21. A reference to Section 20 ' of the Magadh University Act will show that the Syndicate is not composed only of Principals, but several categories of persons are its members, including the Vice-Chancellor and the Treasurer of the University, the Education Secretary to the Government of Bihar and the Director of Public Instructions. Bihar, besides others. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of the University that the decision of the Syndicate was unanimous, which is not controverted by the other side. In such a situation, and keeping in view the statutes of the members of the Syndicate, it is idle to contend that all of them would be influenced by the suspended Principal or even by the University Representative. As a matter of fact, there is no clear averment in the writ application as to in what way the other members of the Syndicate were influenced by Respondent No. 5 or the University Representative to sustain the allegation of mala fide, in the Syndicate having passed the impugned resolution and who are the dominant members of the Syndicate to influence others. It is also stated in paragraph 23 of the counter-affidavit the allegations contained in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the writ application regarding mala fide against the members of the Syndicate, without impleading them, must be ignored.
The University, in the counter-affidavit, by way of illustration of the illegalities committed by the Governing Body, has made mention of its letter dated the 17th July, 1965 and reminder dated the 9th August, 1965 (Annexure 'A'), to show that in spite of its directions to the petitioner not to co-opt guardians' representatives until the seats of all other categories of members prescribed by the Statutes were filled up in accordance with the laws of the University, the petitioner flouted the direction and co-opted Shree Surya Saran Upadhaya (plaintiff of Title Suit No. 121 of 1969), as a guardians' representative, even before the other seats were filled up. It is also stated in paragraph 14 that the audit report of the college was under the consideration of the college at the time the Governing Body suspended the Principal on the ground of financial irregularities. It has also been stated in paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit that a sub-committee has finalised the report and action was being taken on the basis of the audit report by the University. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that the impugned resolution of the Syndicate was a mala fide one or was passed because of the manoeuvring of Respondent No. 5 and the University Representative.
22. Mr. Ghose has lastly urged that the last portion of the resolution of the Syndicate ordering for seizure of the relevant and necessary documents of the college and the operation of the college funds by Respondents 6 and 10, was illegal, as the University had no power to seize the properties of an autonomous institution. There is no substance in this submission of Mr. Ghose as well. Under Article 3 (4) of the Statutes, an ad hoc committee is appointed in place of the Governing Body to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Governing Body until the period of suspension. Therefore, the seizure of those documents was with a view to make them available to the ad hoc committee so that the college may run smoothly. As regards the funds of the college, no question of its misappropriation arises, as Article 18 of the Statutes gives sufficient power to the Syndicate of the University to issue necessary directions in this regard. The opening lines of that article are "save as otherwise directed by the Syndicate/' the different funds of the college shall be kept in the manner as laid down therein. This article, therefore, clearly authorises the Syndicate to pass necessary orders in that direction.
23. In the result, there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
24. Before I part with this case, I may observe that the maximum period of suspension of a Governing Body is to expire shortly and the University has not served any show-cause notice under Article 3 (1), Chapter XIII, of the Statutes, in view of the fact, as stated by the respondents that the matter is sub judice, which it ought to have done. Be that as It may the University should, without any delay, serve charges on the Govern-
ing Body and thereafter dispose of the matter expeditiously one way or the other, so that the interest of the college may not suffer.
Misra, C.J.
25. I agree.