Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manindra Chandra College & Anr vs Dr. Manturam Samanta & Ors on 29 August, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
AND
The Hon'ble Justice Tapash Mookherjee
A.S.T. No. 374 of 2014
The Governing Body, Maharaja
Manindra Chandra College & Anr.
Versus
Dr. Manturam Samanta & Ors.
For Appellants : Mr. L. K. Gupta,
Mr. A. K. Banerjee,
Mr. R. N. Chakraborty,
Mr. Sk. Faridullah,
Mr. Ayanava Bhattacharyya.
For the Writ : Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Petitioner/ Mr. Ratul Biswas.
Respondent No. 1.
For the State : Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, Respondents Mr. Md. Hasanuz Zaman. For the Calcutta : Ms. Shampa Sarkar. University Heard On : 26.8.2014 & 29.8.2014 Judgement On : 29.8.2014 Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against the
judgement and/or order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 20th August, 2014 in W.P. No. 22691(W) of 2014.
By the impugned order, the resolution which was adopted by the governing body of Maharaja Manindra Chandra College on 2nd August, 2014 resolving for discontinuation of the probationary period of the service of the writ petitioner and for releasing him from the post of Principal of the said college with effect from 4thAugust, 2014 was set aside by the Learned Trial Judge and following directions were given:-
"...The petitioner shall continue to serve the college as an unconfirmed Principal. The Governing Body may, if it so chooses, on the basis of its own assessment of the situation but not on the basis of the enquiry/inspection reports of the University and the DPI, initiate disciplinary proceeding against him by issuing formal charge-sheet. Once initiated, such proceedings, shall be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law and upon extending to the petitioner reasonable opportunity of raising effective defence. Should the Governing Body fail to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by October 24, 2014, the petitioner shall be deemed to be confirmed as Principal. However, such deemed confirmation shall abide by the result of the disciplinary proceedings. During the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner shall not be entitled to take any administrative policy decision on his own, whatever might be the urgency."
The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the Learned Trial Judge has been challenged in this mandamus appeal at the instance of the college authority.
In course of hearing of this appeal and the stay application filed in connection therewith, an affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner (Principal) controverting the averments made by the appellants/petitioners in the stay application. He has elaborately disclosed his defence to nullify to the charges levelled against him by the college authority.
In course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Sanyal, Learned Advocate, appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent has produced several other documents which according to his client, prompted the college authority to take the decision for holding an enquiry against the writ petitioner with regard to the charges levelled against him. Inspection of those documents were taken by Mr. Gupta, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants.
After going through the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner/respondent and the documents which were produced by Mr. Sanyal in course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Gupta, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants very fairly submits before this Court after holding a conference with his client that his client does not want to assail the judgement and/or order passed by the Learned Trial Judge which is impugned in this appeal. Thus, we find that the appellants have now accepted the ultimate conclusion drawn by the Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order.
Since they have accepted the conclusion which was drawn by the Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order, we do not find any justifiable reason for deciding this appeal on merit.
However, in the context of the submission of Ms. Shampa Sarkar, Learned Advocate, appearing for the University authorities, we feel that correctness of the findings of the Learned Trial Judge with regard to the jurisdiction and/or power of the University to hold an enquiry into the affairs of the colleges, affiliated to the University, is required to be examined.
The Learned Trial Judge while deciding the writ petition held that the University authorities had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the allegation and/or complaint and/or charges levelled against the Principal of the said college.
Let us now consider as to how far the Learned Trial Judge was justified in holding as such, in the impugned order.
In this context our attention was drawn to various provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 and the Calcutta University First Statute of 1979 which we like to discuss here for ascertaining the justification and/or correctness of the findings of the Learned Trial Judge in this regard.
Section 4, sub-section 8 of the said Act provides that the University shall have the power to provide for inspection, or investigation into the affairs of colleges or institutions recognised by it or affiliated to it and to exercise general supervision and control over them.
Section 9 deals with the powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor. Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the said Act provides that it shall be the duty of the Vice- Chancellor to ensure that the provisions of this Act, and the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations are faithfully observed and to take such action as may be necessary for this purpose.
The powers and functions of the Vice-Chancellor has also been codified in Statute 4(1) of the Calcutta University First Statute, 1979 which provides that save as otherwise provided in the Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall exercise the powers and perform enumerated therein. The relevant part with which we are presently concerned is set out hereunder:-
"It will be the duty and responsibility of the Vice Chancellor to see that the academic standards in the Post Graduate Departments of the University as well as Under Graduate Studies in the affiliated colleges are maintained and improved in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations."
Considering those provisions of the Act as well as the First Statute, we have no hesitation to hold that the Vice-Chancellor of the University has been vested with the power to hold an enquiry within the parameter as prescribed in the Act and/or the First Statute as mentioned above.
In the present case, certain allegations were made against the Principal of a college which is affiliated to the University. It was alleged by the governing body of the said college that the Principal has failed to discharge his academic, administrative and financial duties in proper manner. It was further alleged that the academic development and the interest of the students were grossly neglected during the tenure of the Principal.
When such an allegation was made against the Principal of the said college by the governing body and the University was invited by the governing body of the said college to hold an enquiry with regard to such complaint against the Head of the said institution, we feel that the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to enquire into the said allegations against the Principal. Thus, in our considered view, the Vice-Chancellor did not exceed his jurisdiction by holding the enquiry through his sub-ordinate in this regard as he was authorised to do so by the Act and the Statutes as mentioned above.
Accordingly, in the context of the submission made by Mr. Gupta, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants, as recorded above, we dispose of the appeal without interfering with the impugned order, however, with the observations recorded hereinabove with regard to the powers and functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the University to enquire into the affairs of the colleges affiliated to the University.
The appeal is, thus, disposed of.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) I agree.
(Tapash Mookherjee, J.) ac.