Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Professor V.N. Dass vs Vice-Chancellor, Sri Padmavathi ... on 23 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALD209, 2000(1)ALT18
ORDER
1. Smt. V.N. Das professor in English in the first respondent university filed this writ petition seeking (1) issuance of a writ of mandamus duly declaring the action of the Vice-Chancellor in obtaining her resignation from the post of Registrar of the respondent university forcibly by threatening and pressurising her and accepting the same hastily (2) trying to justify her action by stating that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by her in exercise of the power conferred on her under Section 10(3) of Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswa Vidyalaya Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred as the Act) when the petitioner tried to withdraw her resignation (3) after accepting the resignation as Registrar in trying to post the petitioner as Professor in English by taking away headship of the department as illegal, void ab initio, without jurisdiction, perverse, abuse of power, colorable exercise of power, malicious and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by making the Vice-chancellor and Registrar as respondents 1 and 3 and the Vice-Chancellor in her personal capacity was also impleaded as second respondent and consequently to direct the respondent University to continue the petitioner as Registrar of the University till she completes the tenure with all consequential benefits and to pass such other orders.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner stated that after one Dr. Rambrahmam of Central University resigned for the post and left the university she was initially appointed as In-charge Registrar on 16-11-1998 and thereafter the Executive Council at its meeting held on 6-3-1999 resolved to appoint the petitioner as regular Registrar for a period of one year from the date of resolution in exercise of its powers under Section 12(1) of the Act. Pursuant to the said resolution, the 1st respondent issued proceedings No.949/Estt/C/98 dated 23-3-1999 appointed the petitioner as regular Registrar till 6-3-2000.
From the material papers it is seen that the petitioner while working as Professor in English seemed to have applied for allotment of professors quarter and quarter No.1 was allotted to her on 20-2-1999 and that quarter was unoccupied for over 1 1/2 years. Thereafter, after obtaining oral orders of the second respondent, the petitioner seemed to have got the building repaired at an estimated expenditure of Rs. 16,000/- through a local contractor. For mat the second respondent has taken an objection stating that the material used for repair were drawn from the University and the procedure followed by the petitioner in entrusting the work to the contractor is illegal and in fact she seemed to have appointed a Committee comprising of three professors as an enquiry committee to probe into the matter and submit their report. At the same time, the car that is being used by the Registrar was also in a bad condition. The Engineer of the Respondent University having estimated the works to be attended to the car at Rs.43,000/-, called for quotations and the work was entrusted to the lowest tenderer at the cost of Rs.58,000/-. It is also the case of the petitioner that the work order was sent by the Vice-Chancel lor herself and after the repairs were over to the car and as the same was looking better than the car of the Vice-Chancellor, the second respondent felt envious and not only directed to remove the new Dash-Board in the car having provisions like air-conditioning and stereo-system, but also tore the cheque that has been prepared by the Accounts Officer. On the basis of these two incidents, the second respondent started harassing the petitioner and directed her to resign the post of Registrar, otherwise she will be compelled to remove the petitioner from service even as professor as her probation was not declared in that category. On 23-7-1999 itself the petitioner complained to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education on the highhanded action of the second respondent. Some how, the dispute between the Registrar and Vice-Chancel lor came to the knowledge of the press reporters and they carried a news item in their newspaper on the disputes between the petitioner and the second respondent. On the next date i.e., on 24-7-1999 while the second respondent was discussing about these issues with the petitioner in her chambers in the presence ofseveral officers of the University, the City Cable Spokesman came to the Vice-Chancellor's chamber on the pretext to know the development activities of the University and in the course of conversation he seemed to have raised the issue of differences between the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar and in the presence of the said person both the petitioner and the second respondent seemed to have ultimately resorted to a wordy duel between them. After the correspondent left the chambers, the Vice-Chancel lor asked the Registrar to resign and the petitioner knowing the capabilities of the second respondent seemed to have submitted her resignation then and there itself. The second respondent seemed to have accepted the resignation with her own handwriting. Subsequently, in proceedings No.SPMW/NT/Estt/C/99 dated 24-7-1999 orders were issued accepting the resignation of the petitioner and relieving her from the post of Registrar in the afternoon of 24-7-1999 so as to enable her to report as Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature. The order further states that the Headship in the Department of English Language and Literature shall remain with Dr. T. Asoka Rani, Reader in the Department until further orders. In the same order in-charge arrangements were also made by keeping one Dr. P. Kusuma Kumari, Professor and Head, Department of Telugu Studies as In-charge Registrar with effect from 24-7-1999 afternoon until further orders. On 28-7-1999 in proceedings ROC No.SPMVVRPA/99 a show-cause memo was issued to the petitioner stating that as per the news item published in Indian Express dated 25-7-1999, she approached the press and commented on the authorities apart from complaining to the media (City Cable) on 24-7-1999 against the Vice-Chancellor in her chambers and the same is against the conduct rules and she was asked to submit the explanation on the above lapses within three days from the date of receipt of the same. After receipt of the said memo, the petitioner by her representation dated 3-8-1999 brought the entire episode to the notice of the members of the Executive Council and requested them to help her in getting her reinstated as Registrar to complete her term and restore her dignity. In the last Para she sought permission of the members of the Executive Council to explain the conditions that lead to her resignation in the Executive Council meeting. On 4-8-1999, while submitting her explanation to the charge memo dated 28-7-1999, she submitted another representation to the Vice-Chancellor that the Executive Council is the appointing authority and as the resignation was not accepted by the Executive Council, she is withdrawing the resignation and requested her to take further action to continue her as Registrar till March, 2000. Having received the representation, the Vice-Chancel lor in her proceedings in VCP/APMVV/99, dated 5-8-1999 informed the petitioner that her resignation was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor on 24-8-1999 itself in exercise of the powers conferred on her under -Section 10(3) of the Act. She also stated that after accepting the resignation, the petitioner reported to duty as Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature. It is further stated that the matter will be placed before ensuing meeting of the Executive Council. Hence, this writ petition.
In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that as the petitioner herself requested respondent No.1 to relieve her immediately and as the Vice-Chancellor was leaving for Hyderabad on the same evening to attend Vice-Chancellors' Conference and as the University cannot be kept in vacuum she acted speedily in accepting the resignation of the petitioner and in placing respondent No.3 as In-charge Registrar. With regard to the repairs of the house occupied by the petitioner, it is the case of the Vice-Chancellor that the petitioner indulged in several procedural lapses in entrusting the work to the contractor apart from not bringing to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor that the material belonging to the University is being used for the work. It is also her case that by letter dated 30-5-1999 she made specific queries on the irregularities to the petitioner and requested the Registrar to submit her reply. In reply to the letter dated 30-5-1999, in fact, the petitioner accepted the lapse on her part in not discussing the above matter with the Vice-Chancel lor. She also admitted the appointment of a Committee to examine the issue and report and the committee submitted its report on 22-7-1999.
3. Nextly, it is stated that though there were other officers who applied for the quarter in question, as the Registrar-petitioner was able to push through her claim and was able to get the approval of respondent No.l on the note file. Coming to the repairs of the Car bearing No.ADC 697, the case of the Vice-Chancellor is that the Registrar was complacent and did not follow the procedure even though she got the order for the estimated cost and the Finance wing of the University found several lapses in executing the work which was carried out by the Engineering Branch of the University under the supervision and guidance of the Registrar. It is also the case of the Vice-Chancellor that initially though the value of the repairs was estimated at Rs.43,383/- the final bill for attending to the repairs came to Rs.58,365/- from M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswati Automobiles and the same was found abnormal. Further, the Vice-Chancellor has taken the objection for change of Colour from dark brown to white and selection of fabric for new seats and extra provisions in the dashboard etc.
4. Further, she contended that she never harassed the petitioner and the petitioner herself showed her animosity towards the Vice-Chancel lor by withdrawing watch and ward from the Vice-Chancel ior's bungalow in order to cause inconvenience to the Vice-Chancellor. She also admitted that while posting the petitioner as Professor in English, the Headship was retained with Dr. Ashok Rani and after the writ petition is filed she seemed to have restored the Headship of the Department to the petitioner. She also justified her action in accepting the resignation of the petitioner in exercise of her power under Section 10(3) of the Act by contending that as per the provisions of the 1st Schedule to the Act, the Vice-Chancellor is the enforcing authority of the provisions of the Act. With regard to the memo given to the petitioner dated 28-7-1999 she stated that no member of the staff shall go to the Press degrading the dignity and status of the University authorities, and the University has got every right to verify the veracity of such statements and it may be noted that one of the news items clearly stated that the petitioner spoke to the Press on 24-7-1999 against the Vice-Chancellor and as such she did not act with any ulterior motive in issuing the charge memo. It is also her case that against the irregularities committed by the petitioner action is still in progress and issuance of the charges for the irregularities will arise only after a decision is taken by the Executive Council.
5. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner approached the Court of Law without exhausting the alternative remedies available under the Act. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
From the above, it is seen that these two officers of the University seemed to have picked up a row over two issues i.e., the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in getting the quarter occupied by her and also in incurring the expenditure over and above the estimated cost in getting her car repaired. While the writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court, the Executive Council at its meeting held on 18-8-1999 in Resolution No.04-12, cancelled the Resolution No.456 (04-21), dated 28-12-1994, of the Executive Council, wherein financial powers were delegated to various officers of the University. As per that resolution the Registrar is empowered to incur the expenditure upto Rs.55,000/-towards maintenance of the buildings. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the Vice-Chaneellor moved the subject purposely to see that the petitioner will not have any financial powers and to prompt her from working as full fledged Registrar if the Court reinstates her. The 2nd respondent in her second counter affidavit dated 16-9-1999 contended that the Executive Council did not take away any statutory power conferred on the petitioner and in fact, the Executive Council always stressed the need to adhere to the statutes. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties this Court for consideration formulates the following issues:
(1) Even assuming that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in getting the repairs to the house, executed and in getting the car repaired, whether the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to direct the petitioner to resign from the post of Registrar, if so, under what authority.
(2) Whether the contention of the respondent that she accepted the resignation of the petitioner in exercise of the emergency powers vested in her under Section 10(3) of the Act, can be sustained in law or whether it amounts to mala fide exercise of the power.
(3) Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in not giving the Headship of the English Department white posting the petitioner as Professor after accepting her resignation as Registrar is in bad faith.
(4) What is the effect of the letter of the petitioner dated 4-8-1999 withdrawing her resignation ?
(5) Can it be said that the resolution adopted by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 18-8-1999 is in good faith and a bona fide one.
(6) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy.
6. Before adverting to these, I have to make a mention about two aspects of the matter. On previous occasion while disposing of Writ Petition No. 10037 of 1997 and Batch by order dated 28-S-1997, filed by one Sri C. Rangappa, questioning the action of the respondent University in not appointing him as a Deputy Registrar reserved for SC category even after his selection by the selection committee, I commented on the scanty/manner in which the minutes books of the Executive Council and records of the University that are being maintained, in the following manner:
"It is interesting to note that these officers (The members of the Council are senior officials of the State Government) does not even know how to maintain the minutes book of the Board, the principal executive body of the University a basic register of the University which has to throw light on the decisions taken by the Board from time to time in administering the affairs of the University and which will be immense use for modification, alteration or amendment of the decision of the Board, if circumstances warrant, on a future occasion to cope up with the changed circumstances."
7. Though the judgment was rendered about 2 years back, the respondent University did not act upon the observations made by this Court, with the result, the resolutions said to have been passed by the Executive Council are available in files on loose sheets only and even the files maintained by the respondent University are not in proper order. The files contain only unnumbered loose sheets and it is very difficult to know whether the file is being maintained in upward or downward direction and that the papers were not even arranged either in seriatim or day-wise. The papers in the files are not even numbered day wise at least. From this it can be inferred, the law abiding nature of the University. Perhaps, if the sorry state of affairs continues in this manner, and if the University comes to adverse notice, again the Court will be left with no option except to initiate contempt proceedings for not obeying the directions of this Court.
8. Secondly, when the matter came up for admission on 25-8-1999 having seen that two responsible officers of the University are quarrelling openly over trivial issues, I directed the Counsel for the respondent University to find that whether the second respondent is willing to withdraw the proceedings dated 24-7-1999 and settle the matter amicably or she invites a judgment from this Court, on the issue raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. But the second respondent did not respond to the suggestion made in this regard and the matter was argued by a senior Counsel Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel appearing for Smt. V. Lakshmi Kumari, Counsel for the University hence, the judgment was issued.
9. Issues framed above will be dealt with in seriatim.
Issue No. 1:
10. Coming to the factual matrix of the case on 15-2-1999, the petitioner sought permission of the respondent to permit her to shift one of the Professors' quarters and by order dated 16-2-1999 the Vice-Chancellor permitted her to occupy the house. Before the actual occupation, the petitioner seemed to have sent proposals to the Vice-Chancellor for getting the house repaired at an estimated cost of Rs.17,000/-made by the Engineering Department attached to the respondent-University, out of which the material cost would be around Rs.7,000/-. Thereafter the petitioner seemed to have called for tenders from the local contractors and that only two people seemed to have responded to the tender notification and that she seemed to have negotiated with one of the contractors and entrusted the work for Rs. 18,866/-. In executing the work the materials belonging to the respondent-University have been used by the Contractor. The complaint of the Vice-Chancellor is that there were only two tenders against the normal requirement of three and that when the file came to her she asked the petitioner to speak but without actually speaking to her the petitioner wrote on the file 'spoke' and entrusted the execution of the work to one of the contractors as stated above. It is also her complaint that the file never disclosed that the materials belonging to the University will be used for the above work. For these reasons, the 2nd respondent found fault with the petitioner by raising various queries vide her letter dated 30-5-1999 and also appointed a committee consisting of three Professors to enquire into the above matter. It is also her case that the committee found fault with the petitioner in getting the work executed. From this it is seen that the repairs that were executed to the House occupied by the Registrar costed that University about Rs.18,000/- and even according to the respondent University out of the said amount about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- is towards the costs of the materials and the labour charges in getting the work done comes to about Rs.10,000/-to Rs.11,000/-. For a minor work of this nature, generally the works will be attended departmentally or they will be entrusted on nomination basis to one of the approved contractors and the question of a calling the tenders may not arise. Even assuming without admitting to that, unless three tenderers respond to the notification the work cannot be executed, it is the engineering department functioning in the respondent-University that has to advise the Registrar, as she may not be fully aware of the procedures of the University. Likewise, it is not the case of the 2nd respondent that materials were drawn from the University stores without knowledge of the engineering department of the University. When the works were got executed with the material of the University to that extent the University will be deducting the cost of material supplied from the bill of the contractor. But, the Vice-Chancel lor again made it a big issue by stating that no mention was made in the note that the University's materials will be used. It is to be kept in mind that after the allotment of the house to the petitioner the works have to be done immediately so as to make the house convenient for habitation as the same seemed to be under lock and key for about 1 1/2 years and there was leakage of rain water from the roof. It is further to be seen that as per the resolution No.456 (04-21), dated 28-12-1994, the Registrar is authorised to incur expenditure towards maintenance of buildings upto Rs.50,000/. From this it is doubtful whether the file has to really gone to the Vice-Chancellor seeking her approval for incurring this expenditure as the Registrar herself is authorised to incur the same.
11. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I feel it is a very trivial issue and if the Vice-Chancellor felt-that the Registrar has not followed the procedure, she would have cautioned the petitioner not to repeat this mistake in future, more so after she admitted the lapse, as per the version of the 2nd respondent. But, for the reasons best known to her she has blown the issue out of the proportion. The 2nd respondent is even contemplating to initiate the proceedings disciplinary, as far as the expenditure incurred by the University in getting the car bearing registration No.ADC 697, generally used by the Registrar, repaired. Initially the department seemed to have estimated the expenditure at Rs.43,382.00 and the same had the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. After the tenders were called for the work. The Engineering Department seemed to have entrusted the work to the local workshop by name M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Automobiles at Rs.58,365.00 and this also seemed to have the approval of the Vice-Chancellor and the petitioner is in no way involved either in the preparation of the initial estimation or in the increase in the estimation. The complaint of the Vice-Chancellor on this item of expenditure is that the colour of the car was changed from dark brown to white colour under the oral orders of the Registrar and not by any written order. She also finds fault with the Registrar for using the superior quality of fabric for new seats, and changing the dashboard for having provision for air condition and music system. At the same time it is not the case of the Vice-Chancellor that Air Conditioner or stereo was fixed to the dashboard. In fact the Vice-Chancellor herein admits in the note submitted to the Executive Council that she directed the replacement of the new dashboard with the old one and reduced the expenditure by about Rs.4,000/-. To my mind, this objection is also a very trivial one and the action of the Vice-Chancellor in getting the dashboard removed is beneath the dignity of the person holding the high office of the Vice-Chancellor of the University and this very incident will throw out any amount of light on the perception of the Vice-Chancellor. For these two trivial issues disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are sought to be initiated and she is perhaps awaiting for the approval of her action by the Executive Council in the light of the resignation. In this background, I would like to advise that if the Executive Council thinks it proper to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, for these two alleged irregularities, the same may be entrusted to a person who is not under the control of the Vice-Chancellor, preferably a person from R and B Department who will be well acquainted with the procedures in getting these works done.
12. From the record it is seen that the Vice-Chancellor started questioning the petitioner with regard to the repairs done to the house occupied by the Registrar from 30-5-1999. She also appointed a committee consisting of three professors to enquire into the matter and submit its report and the said committee seemed to have submitted its report on 22-7-1999. According to the respondent the committee found that the procedure followed in the above transaction was irregular. Though I directed the University to place the said report before the Court. However, the same was not placed before this Court. This need not detain me in disposing the matter as I am proceeding on the assumption that even if certain irregularities might have taken place in getting those two works done, it has to be established whether the petitioner is responsible or some other person is responsible as Engineering Department, is also involved in these two transactions in a full fledged enquiry.
13. In the light of the views expressed by me, assuming for a moment that the petitioner is responsible for the alleged irregularities, from the record it is seen that the Vice-Chancellor started insisting the petitioner to resign to the post of the Registrar for some time past failing which she may be compelled to terminate the services of the petitioner even as a professor as her probation was not completed by that time. This is evident from the fetter of the petitioner dated 23-7-1999 addressed to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, and the relevant paragraph in the said representation is extracted hereunder:
"Keeping these two files, the Vice-Chancellor is threatening me to resign the Registrar since she is interested in making some other person of her community as Registrar. From the past one month she was regularly humiliating me before all the non-teaching and teaching staff and not allowing me to function as Registrar. She is continuously harassing me since I belong to minority community."
14. It is also seen from the note submitted by the Vice-Chancellor dated 24-7-1999 to all the members of the Executive Council that she was discussing about these issues in her Chamber on 24-9-1999 in the presence of the officers mentioned on her functioning in the presence of several persons. In the meantime spokesperson of the City Cable entered the Vice-Chancellor's Chamber on the pretext to know on the development agenda of the University and during the conversation he raised the issue of differences between the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar and while the Vice-Chancellor was explaining to him the petitioner seemed to have complained to the media that the Vice-Chancellor is suddenly finding fault with her (the Registrar) and during the course of the conversation the petitioner seemed to have observed that she is not able to defend herself because she does not have political backing. After the press left, the Vice-Chancellor told the Registrar to resign and she asked the two Deans to take additional charge as Registrar and when they expressed their reluctance one professor P. Kusuma Kumari was told to take charge from the Registrar with immediate effect until further orders. As per the orders of the Vice-Chancellor the petitioner submitted her resignation then and there itself. The relevant portion of the letter of resignation dated 24-7-1999 extracted hereunder:
"From 24-7-1999.
Prof. Veena Noble Dass Registrar, S.P. Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupati --517 502.
To The Vice-Chancellor, S.P. Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupati --517 502.
Madam, As directed by the Vice-Chancellor, I hereby render my resignation as Registrar, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam from 24-7-1999 a.m. I may be relieved immediately to enable me to join as Professor and Head in the Department of English Language and Literature on afternoon of today."
15. The second respondent on her letter head accepted the resignation of the petitioner in her own handwriting, which is extracted hereunder:
"Dated 24-7-1999.
Note of Prof. Veetta Noble Dass, Your resignation as Registrar is accepted in the afternoon of 24-7-1999. Professor Kusuma Kumari is kept-in-charge Registrar until further orders. Kindly handover alt papers, keys and cheque books etc"
16. Thereafter on the same day a formal order accepting the resignation of the petitioner was issued by the 2nd respondent herself in proceedings No.SPMVV/NV/Estt./ C/99, dated 24-7-1999. In this order while directing the petitioner to report as Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature, the Vice-Chancellor observed that the Headship in the Department of English Language and Literature shall remain with Dr. T. Asoka Rani, Reader in the Department until further orders.
17. From the note as well as the resignation letter of the petitioner and the two proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor referred above coupled with the representation of the petitioner dated 23-7-1999 extracted above, conclusively establishes that the 2nd respondent was insisting upon the petitioner for some time past to resign from the post of Registrar. In the counter-affidavit dated 20-8-1999 she states as follows:
"In reply to para-2 of the petitioner's affidavit, I submit that it is baseless to allege that the respondent No.2 acting as respondent No.1 has harassed and threatened the petitioner and it is not true to say that she was forced to resign."
18. The statement of the 2nd respondent that "it is not true to say that she forced the petitioner to resign", runs counter to her own note dated 24-7-1999 and such a statement was made only to cover up her high handed action. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, however, admits that it was a fact that the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to resign from the office of the Registrar. In the additional counter, the 2nd respondent asserts that "the petitioner has absolutely no evidence to show that she was either harassed or humiliated and she also tries to contend that desire does not import the meaning of force. It is rather difficult to accept her expression. Without gong into the controversy, the issue can be closed by observing that an and when a departmental inquiry is held it will be open to both the parties to establish their case by producing necessary evidence before the enquiry officer.
19. I asked the learned senior Counsel under what authority the 2nd respondent Vice-Chancel lor asked the petitioner to resign from the office of the Registrar and if really any irregularities committed by the petitioner in getting the above works done it may be a case for initiating disciplinary proceedings but not insisting upon the petitioner to resign. Learned senior Counsel submits that as the Executive Council is seized of the matter the Court instead of deciding the case on merits may leave the matter to the decision of the Executive Council. 1 cannot accede to the request of the learned senior Counsel for the simple reason that neither the Act nor the statutes framed under the Act empower the Vice-Chancellor to demand the resignation of any of the officers of the University and in fact when it is proved that the authority concerned has no jurisdiction or purported to have usurped the jurisdiction without any legal foundation, existence of alternative remedy shall not deter the Court from exercising its powers when the action of the respondent Vice-chancellor is opposed to all cannon of law and is ab initio void as well as fraud on exercise of the power.
20. I am fortified in my view by the following judgments.
21. In Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others, , the Vice-Chancellor after hearing the parties hy his order dated 24-1-1986 in exercise of the powers of the management vested in him under statute 17.06(3) of the Statutes of the University, reinstated the Principal by giving opportunity to the Authorised Controller to impose lesser punishment on the appellant if deem necessary. The Authorised Controller by order dated 27-1-1987, while allowing the appellant to function as Principal put various restraints and constraints on her powers and duties as Principal and directed her to vacate the quarter in which she was residing. Questioning the said orders, the Principal moved the High Court, which in turn by its judgment dated 10-3-1989, quashed the order of the Authorised Controller and directed him to allow the appellant to function as full fledged Principal of the Institution in accordance with law. In the mean time, the Vice-Chancellor at the instance of the appellant herself reviewed her earlier order dated 24-1-1987 and approves the order of the Authorised Controller dismissing the appellant from service. Questioning the said order, the appellant again approached the High Court by filing writ petition tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. On appeal, the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court held as follows:
"11. It is now well established that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancel lor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal acts as aquasi-judicial authority. It is not disputed that the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice-Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing her order dated January 24, 1987, by her order dated March 7, 1987. The said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7, 1987 was a nullity.
12. The next question that falls for out consideration is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. It is true that there was an alternative remedy for challenging the impugned order by referring the question to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute x x x x x to the maintainability of a writ petition. When an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. In the instant case, the Vice-Chancellor had no power of review and the exercise of such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on review was a nullity; such an order could surely be challenged before the High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under Section 68 of the U,P. State Universities Act."
22. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, , the Supreme Court once again reiterated the position in the following words:
"The jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inspile of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. That being so, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage without examining the contention that the show cause notice issued to the appellant was wholly without jurisdiction."
23. Coming to the fraud on exercise of powers, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd and others v. Union of India and others, , while considering the plea of the petitioners whether the impugned executive action on the part of Engineer/Officer, Land and Development Office, New Delhi, dated 10-3-1980, requiring the petitioners to show-cause why Union of India should not re-enter upon and take possession of the demised premises i.e., plots No.9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi together with Express Buildings built thereon under Clause 5 of the aforesaid indenture oflease dated 17-3-1958 for the alleged breach of clauses 2(14) and 2(5) of the lease-deed. They also challenged the validity of an earlier notice dated 1-3-1980 issued by the Zonal Engineer (Buildings), Municipal Corporation, City Zone, Delhi to petitioner No.1, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi to show-cause why the aforesaid buildings being unauthorised should not be demolished under Sections 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 were mala fide and politically motivated, and held as follows:
"Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S.P. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, . A Power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. Use of a power for an 'alien' purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power.
Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtown, 1904 AC 515, 'that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the powers shall be used bona fide for the purpose for which they are conferred.' It was said by Warrington, CJ., in Short v. Pools Corporation, (1926) 1 Ch. 66:
'No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or for corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives would certainly be held to be inoperative.'"
24. In this case, bad the Vice-Chancellor not insisted for resignation of the petitioner, the question of resignation by the petitioner to the office of Registrar would not have arisen. Admittedly, in this case, the power to appoint a Registrar vests with the Executive Council and if the Vice-Chancellor comes to the conclusion that the petitioner acted with any ulterior or corrupt motive, she is expected to place the matter before the Executive Council for taking proper action, but she herself cannot insist the petitioner to resign the office of the Registrar. Hence, I hold that the Vice-Chancellor usurped the authority of the Executive Council and also acted in bad faith in insisting the petitioner to resign from the post of Registrar and it amounts to acting in bad faith. Even assuming for arguments sake that the Vice-Chancel lor is having power to take action against the Registrar for any illegal or irregular acts committed by her, she cannot insist the petitioner to resign from the office, and at the worst she can initiate disciplinary proceedings and take action in accordance with law. But, in this case, the Vice-Chancellor having appointed a three Professor Committee to enquire into the alleged irregular and illegal acts committed by the petitioner, without either placing the matter before the Executive Council or without giving the petitioner an opportunity to contravene the findings, if any recorded by the Committee, and without even passing a final order, she went on insisting the petitioner to resign to the office of the Registrar. Hence, I hold that the action of the Vice-Chancellor is vitiated on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as well as exercise of power in bad faith.
Issue Nos. 2 and 3:
25. Issue Nos.2 and 3 are interconnected and as such I am inclined to consider them together. As stated supra, the petitioner in her resignation letter dated 24-7-1999 categorically stated that she submitted her resignation as Registrar as desired by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-
Chancellor in her own handwriting accepted the same and it is useful to extract the same:
"24-7-1999.
Note to Prof. Veena Noble Das Your resignation as Registrar is accepted in the afternoon of 24-7-1999. Professor Kusuma Kumari is kept In-charge Registrar until further orders. Kindly hand over all papers, keys and cheque books, etc. Sd/-
Ratna Naidu"
26. This note is followed by an order of even date in Proceedings No.SPMVV/ NT/Estt/C/99, to the above effect, which is extracted hereunder:
"No.SPMVV/NT/Dstt/C/99.
24-7-1999.
Orders Sub:--Non-teaching Establishment -Dr. Veena Noble Dass Registrar -Relief Orders - Issued.
Ref:--(1) Letter Dated 24-7-1999 of Dr. Veena Noble Dass Registrar, Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyatayam.
(2) Vice-Chancellor's Orders dated 24-7-1999.
...............
The resignation tendered by Dr. Veena Noble Dass, Registrar vide reference 1 st cited is accepted and she is relieved of the post of Registrar of Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam on the afternoon of 24-7-1999, so as to enable her to report as professor in the Department of English Language and Literature.
The Headship in the Department of English Language and Literature shall remain with Dr. T. Asoka Rani, Reader in the Department until further orders.
Consequent on the relief of Dr. Veena Noble Doss as Registrar, Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam, Dr. P. Kusuma Kumari, Professor and Head, Department of Telugu Studies is kept as In-charge Registrar with effect from 24-7-1999 AN, until further orders.
Sd/-
From the above it is seen that while accepting the resignation of the petitioner, and relieved her from the post on the afternoon of 24-7-1999, directed the petitioner to report as Professor in the Department of English and Literature. At the same time, she categorically stated that the Headship in the Department of English and Literature shall remain with Dr. T. Asoka Rani, Reader in the department until further orders. The note as well as the order do not throw any light that she accepted the resignation of the petitioner in exercise of her powers under Section 10(3) of the Act. For the first time, she stated that she accepted the resignation of the petitioner in her proceedings No.VCP/SPMVV/99, dated 5-8-1999 in exercise of her powers under Section 10(3) of the Act, when the petitioner tried to withdraw her resignation by her letter dated 4-8-1999 stating that as the Executive Council did not accept her resignation, she can withdraw her resignation. Section 10(3) deals with emergency powers of the Vice-Chancellor and it is useful to extract the same for better appreciation of the case of the petitioner.
"The Vice-Chancellor may, if he is of opinion that immediate action is necessary on any matter, exercise any power conferred on any authority of the University by or under this Act, and shall report to such authority the action taken by him on such matter :
Provided that if the authority concerned is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it may refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final;
Provided further that any person in the service of the University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section shall have the right to appeal against such action to the Board of Management within three months from the date on which decision on such action is communicated to him and thereupon the Board of Management may confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor."
27. From this it is seen that the Vice-Chancellor has to form an opinion that immediate action is necessary on any matter to exercise the powers conferred on any authority of the University and report the matter to the authority the action taken by him on such matter. If the authority differs with the view taken by the Vice-Chancellor, the matter has to be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final. Any person aggrieved by the action of the Vice-Chancellor shall have the right of appeal to the Board of Management within three months and the Board may confirm or modify the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor.
28. As stated supra in this case practically the Vice-Chancellor is after the petitioner and insisting her to resign from the post of Registrar and as such the question of exercising any emergency powers does not arise. At any rate the note order as welt as the file from which the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 24-7-1999 was emanated, did not disclose that the Vice-Chancellor formed any opinion that immediate action is necessary on the resignation submitted by the petitioner. But, in the counter she categorically stated as follows:
"There was no haste in accepting the resignation by the Petitioner. In fact, the petitioner herself requested the respondent No.1 to relieve her "immediately". Further the Vice-Chancellor was to leave the same evening for Hyderabad to attend the Vice-Chancellors conference scheduled to be held on 26-7-1999. In such an event she could not leave the institution in a vacuum without a Registrar and with the Vice-Chancellor out of station. The University does not have a Rector as an intermediary to take charge in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar. Under these circumstances, Respondent No.1 had to act speedily in accepting the resignation of the petitioner and place Respondent No.3 as the in-charge Registrar."
29. From the above it is seen that the respondent justified her action by stating that the petitioner requested her to accept her resignation immediately forgetting the fact that the petitioner submitted her resignation having left with no option due to the pressure that has been built on her by the Respondent No.1. The second reason given by the Vice-Chancellor is that she is leaving for Hyderabad on the same evening to attend the Vice-Chancellors' Conference and she could not have the institution in vacuum without Registrar or the Vice-Chancellor out of station.
30. If she is going to Hyderabad to attend the Vice-Chancellors' Conference heavens would not have come down had she not accepted the resignation of the petitioner on that day itself. In fact, the Vice-Chancellor went to the extent of sewing a note on the petitioner, having received the resignation letter, in her own hand writing accepting the resignation of the petitioner, and in the order issued by her of the even date to that effect, she has gone to the extent of striping the petitioner of her headship of the department without any reason whatsoever. It is only after the writ petition was filed, having realised that she was caught on the wrong side by the Court, a note was submitted to the Executive Council under Item No.04-11, by her, seeking ratification of her action in approving resignation of the petitioner as Registrar and keeping of Dr. T. Asoka Rani as head in charge of the department of English. In the note she stated that the petitioner was relieved as Registrar in order to facililate her to join as Professor in the Department of English and Literature, retaining the headship with the then head in charge Dr. T. Asoka Rani pending clearance of the issues relating to the petitioner. The Executive Council perhaps by virtue of the orders of this Court, did not consider the action of the 1st respondent in approving the resignation of the petitioner, but with regard to the headship, the Executive Council authorised the 1st respondent to take a decision and report the matter to the ensuing Executive Council meeting for information.
31. Now, in the counter filed by her, she categorically stated that in pursuance of the Court order, the Registrar issue was not discussed in the Executive Council meeting held at 3:00 p.m. on 18-8-1999, but the issue of headship was moved by the Vice-Chancellor herself and was restored to the petitioner as if she has done a favour to the petitioner.
32. Again in the orders dated 24-7-1999, the 1st respondent categorically observed that the headship will remain with Dr. T. Asoka Rani, Reader in the department until further orders, but in the note submitted, she states that pending clearance of the issues relating to the petitioner. But, as per the proceedings of the Executive Council it is seen that the 1st respondent was authorised to take decision and report back the matter of the Executive Council. In the counter she states that she herself moved the issue of the headship and the same was restored to the petitioner. But, before restoring the headship she did not state that the pending issues relating to the petitioner were cleared.
33. The Vice-Chancellor is under the impression that by virtue of the position held by her she can do and undo things without reference to the legal position or the administrative practice. Unfortunately, the Executive Council consisting of senior IAS officers did not question the Vice-Chancellor what sin the petitioner has committed to withhold the Professorship and they have simply authorised the 1st respondent to take action in the matter. If the Vice-Chancellor thinks that by restoring the headship she is doing a favour to the petitioner she is under a misnomer. Being a Vice-Chancellor she is expected to discharge her duties as per the provisions of the Act and she cannot arbitrarily approbate and reprobate on any issue. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the action of the 1 st respondent either in accepting the resignation of the petitioner as Registrar in exercise of the powers under Section 10(3) of the Act or withholding the headship of the petitioner while repatriating her to the department, is nothing but exercise of power in bad faith and abuse of power.
34. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Banshidhar Shewbhagavan and Co., , held as follows:
"If any authority exercised any power conferred on him by law in bad faith or for collateral purpose, it is an abuse of power and a fraud on the statute. In such a case there can be no difficulty in striking down the act of the authority by the issue of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
35. In State of Mysore v. P.K Kulkarni and others, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that:
"The exercise of every power, whatever its nature, lodged in Governmental authorities, is controlled by the need to confine it to the ambit within which it could justly and reasonably be expected to take place. A power used under the misapprehension that it was needed for effectuating a purpose, which was really outside the law or the proper scope of the power, could be said to be an exercise for an extraneous or collateral purpose:"
Issue No.4:
36. The petitioner in his letter dated 4-8-1999 while withdrawing her resignation having stated that in view of the harassment and victimisation in the hands of the Vice-Chancellor, she was forced to submit her resignation in the threat of dismissal and in very unpleasant circumstances. Having stated the events that have taken place on her resignation categorically stated that As my resignation had not been accepted for that matter not even placed before the Executive Council I can withdraw my request for resignation as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly I withdraw my request for resignation and I am reporting as Registrar forthwith. As upon withdrawal of letter I am deemed to be the Registrar of University in taw till March, 2000.
37. Of course, the 1st respondent gave reply by her Proceedings dated 5-8-1999 that she accepted her resignation in exercise of the powers under Section 10(3) of the Act after she was relieved, and reported to duty in the department of English. Hence, the action of the 1st respondent in accepting the resignation is in accordance with the provisions of the University Act.
38. I have already taken the view that the action of the Vice-Chancellor in accepting the resignation of the petitioner as Registrar in exercise of her powers under Section 10(3) of the Act, is in bad faith. When once the ducks are cleared on that aspect it is well settled proposition that it is always open to the employer to withdraw the resignation before the appropriate authority accepts the same. In support of the above ratio decidendi the Counsel for the petitioner cited the following judgments:
In Raj Kumar v. Union of India, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that:
"Termination of employment by order passed by the Government does not become effective until the order is intimated to the employee. But, where public servant has invited by his letter of resignation, determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus paenitenliae but not thereafter."
39. In Union of India Etc. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and others, , their Lordships held as follows:
"The general principle regarding resignation is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government Servant/ or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/ or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/ or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/ or office-tenure terminated. When it is accepted by the competent authority."
40. In this case though the petitioner submitted her resignation under duress by the 1st respondent dated 12-4-1999, even before submission of the resignation by her letter dated 23-7-1999 addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Higher Education, categorically stated that the Vice-Chancellor was threatening her to resign as Registrar. In the last paragraph she categorically stated, "she is now calling an emergency EC meeting and to-day 23-7-1999 threatened me that if by 1st August I do not resign she will get me dismissed by the EC. Immediately after the petitioner submitted the resignation, the 1st respondent seemed to have forwarded the same to the members of the EC. In the resignation the petitioner in her own handwriting stated as follows:
"Sir, This resignation letter I have submitted today as the Vice-Chancellor threatened to get me dismissed and not declare my probation as Professor. Under these unpleasant circumstances, I was compelled to resign. Kindly, help to restore my dignity."
41. From the material papers filed by the 1st respondent it is seen that the petitioner addressed a letter to the Director of School Education on 28-7-1999 marking copies to all the members of the Executive Council duly enclosing the note on the happenings that have taken place on 24-7-1999. Again by her letter dated 3-8-1999, addressed to the members of the Executive Council, she categorically stated as follows:
"Dear Sir/Madam, In continuation of my letter dated 23-7-1999 and 24-7-1999, I wish to bring the following to your kind notice. As stated in my letter or resignation, I had to resign under threat of dismissal from service on false allegation since my probation as Professor was not declared as on that day.
Hence, I request all the members of the EC to help in getting me reinstated as Registrar to complete my term and give me an opportunity to fulfill my responsibilities and prove my credibilities.
X X X X I, therefore appeal to all the members of the EC to restore my dignity by reinstating me as the Registrar of the University.
X X X X With the permission of the Members of the EC, I wish to explain the conditions that lead to my resignation in the EC Meeting.
From all these events coupled with the note of the Vice-Chancel lor dated 24-7-1999, wherein the Vice-Chancellor categorically admitted that she told the petitioner to resign and asked the two deans present there to take charge as Registrar and as they were reluctant, the present ill-charge Registrar, who worked as dean earlier was asked to take charge from the Registrar, until further orders, it is established beyond doubt that the petitioner never on her own volition submitted her resignation and prior to 24-7-1999, for some time past the Vice-Chancellor is pressing the petitioner to submit her resignation to the post of Registrar. The volcano erupted when the Vice-Chancellor started explaining the differences between her and the petitioner to the Siti Cable reporter, the Registrar seemed to have complained that the Vice-Chancellor is trying to find fault with her. On that the 1st respondent not only insisted the petitioner to submit her resignation but also made alternative arrangements even before the petitioner submitted her resignation.
42. I have already taken the view that the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the Vice-Chancellor on 24-7-1999 is non est in law and it is not in dispute that before withdrawing the resignation, the Executive Council did not even met; leave apart the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by ratifying the action of the Vice-Chancellor. Hence, the question of accepting the resignation of the petitioner by the appointing authority does not arise.
Issue No. 5:
43. After the present writ petitioner has been filed by the petitioner, the Executive Council in its meeting held at 3:00 p.m. on 18-8-1999 at A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Hyderabad, under agenda item No.04-12 passed the following resolution:
"Accounts - Delegation of financial powers to different authorities -Cancellation - Regarding.
Resolved to approve the proposal to withdraw the delegated financial powers accepted in the Board of Management meeting held on 28-12-1994 and also resolved to follow the delegated financial powers as per the Act and statutes of the University, as recommended by the Finance Committee in its meeting held on 18-8-1999.
44. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor in bad faith got the resolution passed by the Executive Council to deprive her from functioning as a full-fledged Registrar, and if the Court looks at the attendant circumstances, which led to passing of the resolution, it will clinchingly establish that the action is a motivated one. Before adverting to this contention, I would like to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court on this aspect.
45. In Smt. S.K. Venkataraman v. Union of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 49, their Lordships of the Supreme Court relying on a judgment in Shearer v. Shields, (1914) Appeal Cases, held as follows:
"A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently.
Thus malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause.
Finally, their Lordships held as follows:
An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must, therefore, beheld to be infected with an abuse of power."
46. In Rajendra Roy v. Union of India and another, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows:
"It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions." .
47. In Mahabir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others, AIR 1990 SC 1031, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:
"It is well settled that there can be "malice in law."
Existence of such 'malice in law' is part of the critical apparatus of a particular action in administrative law. Indeed "malice in law" is part of the dimension of the rule of relevance and reason as well as the rule of fair play in action."
48. In State of Bihar and another v. Shri P.P. Sharma and another, , Justice Ramaswamy, as he then was, dealt with mala fides in paragraph 50 of the judgment and held as follows:
"50. Mala fide means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique motive; and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power."
Keeping the above principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on malice and exercise of power in bad faith in mind, I would like to deal with the events that have taken place in the University after the 2nd respondent took over the charge as Vice-Chancellor.
49. Before the 2nd respondent assumed the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. C. Anjali Devi, Reader in Applied Nutrition and ED, Center for Provisional and Allied studies, University College for Women, Hyderabad, was appointed as Registrar on contract basis by the Proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor dated 1-1-1997, pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Executive Council on 3-9-1996, and she assumed charge on 16-6-1996. Just before the contract period came to an end she seemed to have filed a representation before the Executive Council to extend her contract period for another period of one year, but the Executive Council at its meeting held on 1-9-1997 extended the contract period for six months with effect from 11-9-1997. Just before completion of the extended period the Executive Council seemed to have extended the said contract period upto 30-4-1998 at its meeting held on 3-2-1998. The 2nd respondent on her appointment as Vice-Chancellor assumed the office in March, 1998 and it is interesting to note that within a span of one month thereafter an agenda item was put up to the Executive Council meeting held on 20-4-1998 to consider whether the term of Dr. Anjali Devi has to be extended or not. Before the Executive Council meeting took place, it is not known what happened between the Vice-Chancellor and the then Registrar, but Smt. Anjali Devi requested the University to repatriate her to her parent University. The Executive Council while accepting the request of Smt. Anjali Devi appointed one Sri Rama Brahmam, who was working as Reader, Academic Staff College, University Hyderabad, in which the 2nd respondent was working as a Professor prior to her appointment as Vice-Chancellor, for a period of one year. I have gone through the file relating to the appointment of the Registrar, maintained by the 1st respondent University. I am surprised to see how Mr. Rama Brahman was appointed as Registrar even without any request from him in that regard. He has taken charge on 6-5-1998 and by his letter dated 4-11-1998, he sought for repatriation and requested the Vice-Chancellor to relieve him on the afternoon of 11-11-1998. Having accepted the request of Mr. Rama Brahmam, initially the 2nd respondent kept one C.L. Prabhavati as in charge Registrar from 11-11-1998 to 16-11-1998 and thereafter the petitioner was kept in charge of the said post of Registrar upto 23-3-1999. Ultimately, the Executive Council on 6-3-1999 adopted resolution appointing the 1st respondent University to that effect issued the petitioner as Registrar on tenure basis for a period of one year and orders.
50. I already dealt with the incidents that have taken place after the petitioner was appointed as Registrar on tenure basis supra. What is interesting to note is that after Mr. Rama Brahmam left the University a right up seemed to have appeared in the daily newspaper i.e., The Hindu, on 30-11-1998, wherein it is stated that the Vice-Chancellor forced Mr. Rama Brahmam to resign and Mr. Rama Brahmam writes a letter on 27-11-1998 to the Chief Correspondent, The Hindu (Tirupati) stating that he opted for repatriation for Central University, Hyderabad owing to academic and personal reasons and no one forced him to resign. In the context of the rebuttal it has to be seen whether Mr. Rama Brahmam was not aware of the fact that his academic work will suffer if he accepts the offer of appointment of the 1st respondent-University as Registrar of the University, and how is it he could realise within six months that his academic work is suffering. Further even without giving sufficient notice to the University to make alternative arrangements, having worked as Registrar for six months what necessitated him to ask the Vice-Chancellor by his letter dated 4-11-1998 to relieve him on the afternoon of 11-11-1998. Further, in this writ petition, the petitioner made a statement that the said Rama Brahman as Registrar was not able to bear the harassment and humiliation at the hands of Dr. Ratna Naidu, Vice-Chancellor, Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam, resigned and left the University. The 2nd respondent makes the in-charge Registrar to write a letter to Mr. Kama Brahmam by extracting this passage on 16-8-1999, with a request to offer his remarks urgently on the above statement so as to furnish the same before the Court, and the said Rama Brahmam immediately obliges the Vice-Chancellor by writing a letter dated 18-8-1999 stating that the averment made in the writ petition by the petitioner herein is false and without any basis.
51. Nextly, after the petitioner was appointed as Registrar by her letter dated 15-2-1999, she requested permission to occupy the vacant quarter at the earliest and on that letter the 2nd respondent made an endorsement on 16-2-1999 "yes please do". But, now in the counter she states as hereunder:
"..... It is not true that the Petitioner was asked to move into Quarter No.1 by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner had applied for Quarter No.1. There were other claimants to the quarter, including an application from the Deputy Warden. As Registrar, the petitioner was able to push through her claim and was able to get the approval of respondent No.1 on the note-file."
52. It is also contended that the petitioner mislead the 1st respondent and obtained the orders on the note-file for shifting into the quarter. She also states that there are other claimants including the Deputy Warden.
53. Definitely the office of the Registrar is higher than the office of the Deputy Warden, and she did not say who are the other claimants for the said quarter. On the other hand she simply endorsed on the request of the petitioner "yes please do". If any other claimants are there as contended by the 2nd respondent, it is not known how the quarter was kept vacant for more than one and half years.
54. The funniest part of the story is that she finds fault with the Registrar for changing the colour of the car provided by the University to her from dark brown to white, for also using selection fabric for new seats and fixing a dash board with provisions of air conditioning and music system etc., which in my opinion is beneath the status of a person holding the office of the Vice-Chancellor in making hue and cry over such a trivial issues. Further, she did not deny the specific averment made by the petitioner in the counter as well as the additional counter that she tore of the cheque prepared by the accounts department of the University, payable to the mechanic for the repairs done to the said car. After accepting the resignation in the note submitted by her to the Members of the Executive Council, she categorically admitted that she told the Registrar to resign, but, now in the counter she denies the same. In fact, in the additional counter filed on 16th September, 1999, she furthers states that the petitioner herself used the word 'desired' and the word 'desired' does not give the meaning of the word 'force'. Likewise, in the additional counter she states that the petitioner tampered her letter of resignation dated 24-7-1999 by appending a note (stated supra), which was not there in the letter given to her. In this note she categorically admitted that she was discussing these issues with the petitioner in the presence of several employees of the University forgetting the fact that the petitioner is next to her in official rank and she deserves the same respect from the other employees of the organization. Further when media person raises the issue, being a Vice-Chancellor, it is not known why she explained to him about the internal differences between her and the petitioner. According to me, her intention to do so is to humiliate the petitioner both in presence of the teaching staff of the University as well as the media person. She has also gone to the extent of stating that ward and watch at the Vice-Chancellor's bungalow was withdrawn at the instance of the petitioner and she filed a statement showing the list of watchmen regular and NMR, SPMVV, Tirupati, containing a written endorsement of one Mr. Chengalrayudu, to seemed to be the in charge of watchmen stating that as per the directions of the Registrar from 7-6-1999 to 20-6-1999 no watchman was posted at the bungalow of the Vice-Chancellor from 7.00 hours to 20.00 hours. But, no orders whatsoever given by the petitioner were filed in support of this statement. In fact, when I directed the senior Counsel to establish this fact with reference to the records, he fairly conceded that this Court might ignore that endorsement. If really there is any truth in this allegation, I have no manner of doubt that the 2nd respondent would have made an issue on this also along with other two issues i.e., repairs to the quarter and the car as the petitioner's resignation has taken place only on 24-7-1999. Purposefully I have not adverted to various allegations made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner on this two trivial issues as 1 have given liberty to the 1st respondent-University to conduct a departmental enquiry on the lapses committed by the petitioner, if the 1st respondent wishes to do so. From the above narration of facts it is seen that the 2nd respondent is a headstrong person and she thinks that her word is the law without reference to the procedures, the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder.
55. Now, it has to be seen whether the action of the Executive Council in passing resolution No.04-12, dated 18-8-1999 withdrawing the financial powers delegated to various officers of the University by the then Board of Management at its meeting held on 28-12-1994 is a bona fids exercise of power or not. Though from the correspondence relating to 25th Executive Council Meeting it is seen that at the instance of the respondent, the petitioner in the capacity of the Registrar gave a circular in Proceedings No.SPMVV/C2/99, dated 23-7-1999 to all the sections to prepare agenda items for the EC meeting to be held on and submit stenciled items to the concerned administrative branch on or before 27-7-1999 and the items submitted thereafter will not be included in the agenda. The agenda items submitted by various sections did not contain the date on which the proposals were sent to the academic branch. Subsequently, the Executive Council meeting was postponed and it was convened in the office of the A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Hyderabad on 18-8-1999. Hence, it is not known when the proposal was moved and at whose instance this agenda item was included. It is the specific case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in the month of September, 1999 that the 2nd respondent got this agenda item included in the Executive Council meeting having come to know of the views of this Hon'ble Court only with a view to take away all the financial powers of the officers including the Registrar and see that the petitioner won't function as a full-fledged Registrar in the event the writ petition is allowed. In the agenda note the reason given for withdrawing the financial powers is that the budget of the University is low when compared to the budget of other Universities. Here I may state that the Board of Management delegated the financial powers to various officers of the University by its resolution No.456(04-12) dated 28-12-1994 and orders were issued to that effect by the then Vice-Chancellor on 24-5-1995. Subsequently, as per the orders of the Vice-Chancellor dated 9-12-1996 the financial powers were further delegated to the Financial Officer, Accounts Officer, Deputy Registrar and the Principal. Now, in the note submitted to the Executive Council it is stated as hereunder:
"Matter for Consideration To approve the proposal to withdraw the delegated financial powers accepted in the Board of Management meeting held on 28-12-1994 except for the delegated powers as per orders dated 10-12-1996 and the word 'Principal' may be substituted by 'Dean'."
56. From this it is seen that the Vice-Chancellor wants to withdraw the financial powers conferred by the Executive Council while retaining the delegation of powers conferred by the then Vice-Chancellor on 10-12-1996, and the Executive Council faithfully passed the resolution withdrawing the financial powers and resolved to follow the delegated financial powers as per the act and statutes of the University as recommended by the Finance Committee in its meeting dated 18-8-1999. The Finance Committee simply endorsed the view of the Vice-Chancellor.
57. During the course of arguments the Counsel for the respondents admitted that about 1500 students are studying in the University campus and about 100 teachers are working in the University apart from the subordinate staff with an annual budget of Rs.3.00 crores. The Executive Counsel felt that the amount of three crores is a low budget and by passing the resolution the Executive Counsel consisting of senior IAS officers directs the officers of the University to approach the Vice-Chancellor for prior sanction even to spend five rupees. Further, when the Executive Council decided to withdraw the financial powers conferred on the Officers of the University by the then Board of Management including that of the Registrar, it is not known how the financial powers of the Registrar that were delegated by the 1st respondent in her proceedings dated 10-12-1996 can survive. This is yet another instance to know the hot headedness of the 2nd respondent.
58. Now, I would like to refer to the provisions of the Act as well as the statute with regard to the financial powers of the officers. Section 13 of the Act speaks of appointment of whole time Finance Officer, who may invariably from the Education Department of the Government and he shall maintain the accounts of the University and advise the University on all matters relating to income and expenditure. He shall be present at the meetings of the Finance Committee and participate in the discussions, but shall not be entitled to vote. Under Section 18, speaks constitution of the Finance Committee and its powers and functions has to be prescribed by the statute No.7. Finance Committee and its powers are dealt in statute. Paragraph No.2 of the Statute deals with duties and powers of the Financial Committee.
59. From this it is seen that the Finance Committee shall prepare the annual budget estimates and submit the same to the Board of Management for approval. Clause (d) speaks that the Finance Committee can make recommendation to the Executive Council on all proposals involving expenditure for which no provision has been made in the budget or which involves expenditure in excess of the amount that was approved in the budget. From this it is seen that the officers of the University are expected to exercise financial powers as per the budgetary provisions made on each item of expenditure and the Finance Committee comes into picture only when no provision was made in the budget involving expenditure on a particular item or the expenditure involved in excess. But, the members of the Executive Council simply passed a resolution "to follow the delegated financial powers as per the act and statutes of the University." But, the quest made by me to trace delegated financial powers either under the Act or the Statutes went in vein.
60. For the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the Executive Council consisting of senior IAS officers played to the tunes of the Vice-Chancellor without knowing, the hindrance the resolution adopted by them is going to cause in the absence of delegation of financial powers to the officers concerned and it is nothing but non application of mind on the part of the members of the Executive Council and arbitrary exercise of powers vested in them. In fact, I am constrained to hold that they have abdicated their functions as members of the Executive Council and protect the interests, dignity and reputation of the University in the minds of the public when two senior functionaries of the University are quarrelling on trivial issues openly.
61. The 2nd respondent in her counter states that the petitioner claimed that she has power to spend upto Rs.50,000/- for effecting repairs for the quarter without reference to the Vice-Chancellor shows her ignorance over the financial norms. She further states, "Power to spend does not imply committing financial irregularities. As the Chief Executive of the University, it is the Vice-Chancellor's duty to rectify irregularities once if they are brought to her notice. The Vice-Chancellor ship is not a privilege but a trust and an obligation to be answerable to the Government and the public." In the resolution adopted by the Board of Management at its meeting dated 28-12-1994, it is stated that the Registrar is entitled to spend upto Rs.50,000/- for getting the buildings repaired without routing the file to the Vice-Chancellor. If the petitioner really committed any financial irregularity or illegality, it is always open to the Vice-Chancellor to place the same before the Executive Council, which is the appointing authority for the office of the Registrar, to take appropriate action against the Registrar in accordance with law. But, on that ground, she cannot ask the Executive Council to withdraw the financial powers of the Registrar and the Executive Council also cannot withdraw the same, which will hamper the administration of the University. Any remedial measures taken by the Executive Council should not result in bringing the institution to a grinding halt. Hence, I hold that the resolution No.04-12, dated 18-8-1999, passed by the Executive Council withdrawing the financial powers is the direct result of the animosity developed by the 2nd respondent towards the petitioner and the same is vitiated by mala fides. Of course, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when mala fides are alleged against a particular authority and when that authority was made a party respondent, if the authority fails to file a separate counter, it should be presumed that mala fides have proved. I am not going into that aspect because the 2nd respondent filed counter both on behalf of herself and respondent No.1.
Issue No.6:
62. While dealing with issue No.1, I have already taken the view that existence of alternative remedy is no bar for exercise of the plea nary powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the very action of the respondent is based on fraud and the same is ah initio void. Further from 1st proviso to subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Act, it is seen that if the Executive Council differs from the view taken by the Vice-chancellor, they have no power to cancel or modify the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor, but they have to refer the matter to the Chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final which is a time consuming process. Hence, I feel that the remedy provided under the Act is not at all an efficus and effective one.
63. In the light of the foregoing discussion on various issues framed for consideration, the petitioner cannot be unsuited on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy.
64. In the result, all the issues framed for consideration were answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and a writ of mandamus shall issue setting aside the orders of respondent No.1/Vice-Chancellor dated 24-7-1999, accepting the resignation of the petitioner as Registrar of the University and also resolution No.04-12 dated 18-8-1999 withdrawing the financial powers of the officers of the University and consequently a direction is given to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Registrar till the completion of the tenure for which she was appointed after excluding the period under which she was not allowed to function as Registrar of the University with full financial powers as per the Circular dated 29-6-1995 pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Management dated 28-12-1994. In the light of the facts of this case, the petitioner shall be entitled for costs in this writ petition. Advocates fee Rs.5,000/-and the same shall be payable by the 2nd respondent in her personal capacity.
65. This leaves one more issue to be answered by this Court, i.e., whether the fees paid to the senior Counsel has to be paid by the University or the 2nd respondent personally. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is having its own Counsel and she shall be paid her fees as per the terms of her appointment. In this case the 2nd respondent engaged the services of a senior Counsel under an impression that the presence of the senior will tilt the result in her favour. Now, as the University lost its case, the 2nd respondent being very conscious person and in her own language that the Vice-Chancel lor ship is not a privilege but a trust and an obligation to be answerable to the Government and the public, and as the legal fee paid to the senior Counsel is likely to be much more than that of the alleged amount squandered away by the petitioner, which now the 2nd respondent is trying to safeguard, she shall pay the fees to the senior Counsel engaged by her to uphold her ego, from out of her pocket without causing financial burden to the University whose annual budget is very less than the budget of other Universities in her own terms and see that the developmental activities of the University are not hampered.
66. The 1st respondent University shall give effect to these orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
67. WP is accordingly allowed with costs.