Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
University Of Rajasthan vs Prof. Nimali Singh Parmar D/O Shri Suraj ... on 12 July, 2024
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 419/2024
University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, J.L.N. Marg,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Prof. Nimali Singh Parmar D/o Shri Suraj Verma, Aged About 54
Years, R/o L-3-B, Maharani College Staff Quarters, Near Diggi
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
Connected with
2. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 420/2024 University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus Prof. Sohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Pokhar Mal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o P-3, University Campus, Rajasthan University, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur 302004 (Raj.)
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman and Mr. Keshav Parashar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment RESERVED ON :: 03/07/2024 PRONOUNCED ON :: 12/07/2024 (Per. Pankaj Bhandari, J) (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (2 of 10) [SAW-419/2024]
1. Appellant - University of Rajasthan has preferred these appeals aggrieved by order dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the effect and operation of the order dated 01.03.2024 issued by the appellant has been stayed.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that an Interpretation Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor consisting of the respondents and two other members. The purpose of the said Committee was for the interpretation of the Constitution of the Rajasthan University Student Union (hereinafter referred to as 'RUSU') and removal of doubts and difficulties arising therein. One of the unsuccessful candidates in the student election, Mr. Pushpendar Singh Meena made a complaint before the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India.
3. In the said complaint, Mr. Pushpendra Singh Meena alleged discrepancies in conducting RUSU Elections for the year 2022. It was additionally alleged that the Interpretation Committee has acted beyond its powers and has amended the said constitution by way of interpretations. Certain directions were issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. The Vice-Chancellor vide order dated 01.03.2024 has suspended the respondents from the post of H.O.D. and has also suspended the respondents from all the Statutory Bodies/Authorities. Aggrieved by which, the respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court wherein a prayer was made for staying the order dated 01.03.2024. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order has stayed the operation of the order dated 01.03.2024, aggrieved by which present appeals have been filed.
(Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (3 of 10) [SAW-419/2024]
4. It is contended by Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma that it is settled law that Court should not interfere with the order of suspension, unless they were passed with malafide and without there being any prima facie evidence. In this regard, reliance has been placed on U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan & Others: 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 483.
5. It is contended that the Appointing Authority found a prima facie case against the respondents and has placed them under suspension as per Ordinance 357(C). Reliance in this regard is placed on Upendra Mishra Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Others: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.842/2000, wherein it was held that suspension of a Government Employee in contemplation of an inquiry, cannot be challenged except on the limited ground of malafide or malice in a given case. It was also held that the principle of audi alteram partem is not applicable before issuing a suspension order, when the suspension is in contemplation of an inquiry. It is further contended by Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate that the Court has made observation that the respondents were having unblemished reputable and fantastic record. There was neither an occasion nor any material on record to corroborate the same. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that the final decision of suspension is based on the directions of the National Commission. It is argued that Prof. Shyam Lal Jedia Committee was constituted to look into the matter, which has concluded that the decision dated 17.08.2022 of the Interpretation Committee was beyond its competence and was (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (4 of 10) [SAW-419/2024] in violation of the RUSU Constitution, 2017. It was submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the Vice-Chancellor considering the report of Prof. Shyam Lal Jedia Committee, has formed the opinion to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondents. Therefore, the suspension order ought not to have been stayed by the learned Single Judge. It is also contended that the order of suspension was passed on 01.03.2024, the writ petition was filed late in May, 2024 at a belated stage and the order of suspension had already become operative and acted upon.
6. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman & Mr. Keshav Parashar, has opposed the appeals. It is argued that the respondents have an unblemished record. They were made members of the Interpretation Committee and the interpretation they have done is in pursuance of the earlier notification issued by the University. It is also contended that the order dated 01.03.2024 clearly postulates that the same has been issued on the directions of the National Schedules Tribes Commission and on the basis of the report of Prof. Shyam Lal Jedia Committee.
7. It is argued that the syndicate in its special meeting held on 01.07.2019 had approved amendment in the University Ordinances. Clause 4.12 of the Ordinance provides that the date of registration in the Ph.D. Program will be the date of commencement of the course work as notified by the Convener, University of Rajasthan-MPAT for year concerned. It also provides that the Ph.D. Program shall be for a minimum duration of three years including course work and a maximum of six years. It is also (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (5 of 10) [SAW-419/2024] argued that in the minutes of the meeting dated 17.08.2022 in which the respondents and other members were present, it was clearly mentioned that the interpretation is being done in pursuance of the special meeting of the syndicate dated 01.07.2019 and considering Clause 6.1 of Notification No.20. It is also argued that the said interpretation was done in accordance with the notification issued by the University and the same finds place in the minutes of the meeting dated 17.08.2022. It is argued that the interpretation was done way back on 17.08.2022, the suspension order has been passed on 01.03.2024 i.e. after a lapse of more than one and a half years and that too, at the behest of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
8. It is also contended that no undue favour has been done to any candidate and the interpretation was done prior to the elections. Mr. Pushpendra Singh Meena did not challenge the interpretation and has approached the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes after the declaration of the result of election. It is also contended that the respondents have not been suspended rather their particular work has been taken. They have been restrained from working as the Head of the Department/Principal, which is contrary to the provisions.
9. We have considered the contentions and have also gone through the material on record.
10. The main contention of counsel for the appellant is that the respondents have re-written the RUSU Constitution and have also exceeded their powers. They were only required to interpret the RUSU Constitution, but they could not have added or deleted any portion of the RUSU. In this regard, suffice to state that (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (6 of 10) [SAW-419/2024] notification No.20 was issued by the University wherein it was provided that the date of registration in PhD. Program will be the date of commencement of the course work as notified by the Convener for the year concerned. The notification further provided that the Ph.D. Program shall be for a minimum duration of three years including course work and a maximum period of six years.
11. The Interpretation Committee vide their minutes of meeting dated 17.08.2022 referred to the Notification No.20 Page 11 Point No.6.1 and the syndicate special meeting dated 01.07.2019, whereby this notification was accepted. The Interpretation Committee gave its interpretation on 17.08.2022, thereafter, on 18.08.2022 Draft Electoral Roll was published, polling took place on 26.08.2022 and the result was declared on 27.08.2022. Mr. Pushpendra Singh, who lost the election, made a representation to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes on 12.11.2022. An Inquiry Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor on 31.05.2023. The Committee submitted its report on 03.08.2023. It is pertinent to note that this Committee was constituted after the complaint was lodged by Mr. Pushpendra Singh before the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. On perusal of the report of the Committee dated 03.08.2023, it is evident that the Committee came to the conclusion that Mr. Ram Swaroop Ola was given admission contrary to the Rules. Mr. Ram Swaroop Ola was given benefit of OBC category whereas, he was not having a valid OBC Category Certificate. The Committee also came to the conclusion that the Interpretation Committee had permitted 'Course Work Students' without there being a decision of the syndicate. The only conclusion as against the respondents and (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (7 of 10) [SAW-419/2024] other two Professors of the Interpretation Committee is that they have permitted the 'Course Work Students', which is contrary to the RUSU Constitution. The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes conveyed to the Vice-Chancellor vide their letter dated 09.02.2024 enclosing the minutes of the meeting dated 19.01.2024 wherein the Commission recommended to the Vice- Chancellor, Rajasthan University to take all possible steps to register one FIR inserting the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; to conduct an independent and impartial investigation of the entire issue in a time bound manner within 15 days; discreet inquiries be conducted against the three officials against whom the appellant- petitioner has raised allegations and appropriate action be initiated against the officials against whom the allegation have been leveled. At the bottom of this letter following was mentioned:
Action Taken Report with compliance of the recommendations be submitted to the Commission within 15 days.
12. The order that has been passed thereafter on 01.03.2024 clearly stipulates that considering the report of the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Prof. Shyam Lal Jedia, Ex.
Vice-Chancellor as well as the directions received from the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes, in view of the inquiry contemplated, the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan University Act, 1946 suspended the respondents from the post of H.O.D/ Principal and also from all the statutory bodies and authorities. It is clear that the Vice-Chancellor has not applied his mind, but has acted on the basis of the directions issued by the National Commission for (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (8 of 10) [SAW-419/2024] Scheduled Tribes. The contention of Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the University that the Vice- Chancellor has not lodged FIR under the SC/ST Act and therefore, it cannot be said that the Vice-Chancellor has acted on the directions of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, has no force as FIR could be lodged only if an offence is made out.
13. We are of the considered view that the Vice-Chancellor ought to have taken note of the fact that the Interpretation Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor himself and the job of the Committee was to interpret the RUSU Constitution and remove difficulties arising therefrom. The Vice-Chancellor has also not considered the fact that the Interpretation Committee referred to syndicate meeting dated 01.07.2019 and the notification wherein it was provided that the date of registration in Ph.D Program will be the date of commencement of the Course Work. This fact was also not taken note of by the Inquiry Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Prof. Shyam Lal Jedia. It is also noteworthy that the candidate who had lost the election and who had approached the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes did not raise any dispute at the time when the course work students were permitted to participate in the elections. It is also noteworthy that the interpretation done by the Committee permitted all the students, who had taken admission in the course work and it was not pertaining to a specific candidate. If the candidate, who had contested the election, had taken admission by placing forged document, that was not within the purview of the Interpretation Committee of which the respondents were members. It cannot be said that they acted in an unfair manner or changed the RUSU (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (9 of 10) [SAW-419/2024] Constitution without the meeting of the syndicate. In fact the syndicate itself had treated the candidates, who have taken admission in the course work at par with those, who were pursuing Ph.D.
14. The letter received from the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes clearly directs the Vice-Chancellor to take action and to submit Action Taken Report. It is thus clear that whatever has been done by the Vice-Chancellor was under the directions of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and it is not an order passed on the basis of the material available on record.
15. Yet another point that arises before us is that the power to suspend means suspending a particular employee, it does not empower the Vice Chancellor to withdraw a particular work from the employees. In the present case, the employees have been permitted to perform the work of Professor, only their position as H.O.D/Principal has been kept under suspension. We are also of the considered view that the inquiry which has been contemplated for does not call for suspension of the work of H.O.D. as whatever has been done, is on record and there is no possibility of influencing anyone. The contention of Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the University that there is no allegation of malafide and therefore, the suspension order should not be stayed is without any force for the very reason that the order at the face of it does not appear to have been passed on the basis of the material on record, but has been passed on the basis of the directions given by the Commission and merely because, the Vice-Chancellor has not been made a party, it cannot be said (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:28519-DB] (10 of 10) [SAW-419/2024] that the order cannot be stayed or cannot be challenged before the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
16. The contention of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the University that the order has been complied with is also of no basis as only a particular work, which was assigned to the respondents has been suspended. Therefore, the suspension order whereby suspending the work of the H.O.D/Principal was not called for and the learned Single Judge has clearly appreciated and has not committed any error in staying the operation of the suspension order.
17. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the present appeals. The appeals deserve to be and are, accordingly, dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
18. Any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the Writ Court.
19. All pending applications stand also disposed off.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
SUNIL SOLANKI /PS
(Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:53:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)