Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat Vidyapith vs Piyush Ramanlal Shah on 23 June, 2014

Author: C.L.Soni

Bench: C.L. Soni

       C/SCA/8112/2009                                     CAV JUDGMENT



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8112 of 2009



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

================================================================
1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
     the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
     judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
     to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
     order made thereunder ?

5    Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

================================================================
                     GUJARAT VIDYAPITH....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
                  PIYUSH RAMANLAL SHAH....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DG CHAUHAN with MR RONAK CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
PARTY-IN-PERSON, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

                            Date : 23/06/2014


                             CAV JUDGMENT

1. In this petition filed under article 226/227 of  Page 1 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT the Constitution of India, the petitioner­the Gujarat  Vidhyapith,   a   deemed   university   has   challenged  judgment and order dated 30.03.2009 passed by Gujarat  Universities   Services   Tribunal,   ('the   Tribunal'   for  short)   in   Appeal   No.1   of   2008   preferred   by   the  respondent   against   the   order   of   his   dismissal   from  service.  

2. As   per   the   facts   stated   in   the   petition,   the  respondent   was   initially   appointed   as   Assistant  Registrar with effect from 20.01.1990.   By the order  dated 28.03.1998, respondent came to be appointed as  development   officer   of   the   University.     During   his  tenure as development officer, since regular registrar  of   the   University   retired   from   service   with   effect  from 30.11.2000, he was given charge of Registrar with  effect   from   01.12.2000   till   31.03.2004   and   from  01.04.2004 Dr.Rajendra Khemani came to be appointed as  Registrar.  During his service tenure, the respondent  indulged   into   activities   detrimental   to   the  institution and such activities being the misconduct,  the resolution dated 09.05.2005 came to be passed by  the Trustee mandal of the petitioner­University, for  taking action against the respondent.  The respondent  Page 2 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT was   served   charge­sheet   dated   12.05.2005   for   21  charges.     For   holding   inquiry   into   such   charges,   a  retired   District   Judge   was   appointed   as   inquiry  officer.  Out of 21 charges, two charges were dropped  and   from  remaining   19   charges,   15   charges  were   held  proved   against   the   petitioner   as   per   the   inquiry  report   dated   15.05.2006.     The   respondent   was   then  issued show cause notice dated 20.05.2006 calling upon  him   to   explain   why   major   punishment   under   civil  service   appeal   rules   should   not   be   imposed.     After  respondent   submitted   his   reply   to   the   show   cause  notice, the disciplinary authority­the Vice Chancellor  passed   order   dated   08.07.2006   dismissing   the  respondent   from   service.     The   respondent   challenged  the said order by filing appeal on 14.07.2006 before  the   Trustee   Mandal   of   the   University.     The   Trustee  Mandal­the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment  from   dismissal   to   compulsory   retirement   by   its  decision dated 20.11.2006. Against said decision, the  respondent   preferred   Appeal   No.1   of   2007   before   the  Tribunal.     The   Tribunal   since   expressed   its   prima­ facie opinion that the Trustee mandal could not have  decided the appeal, but the Executive Council should  Page 3 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT have   decided   the   appeal,   the   petitioner   agreed   for  disposal of the appeal with certain directions.   The  respondent   thereafter   preferred   appeal   before  Executive Council on 12.11.2006.  Before the Executive  Council, the respondent did not raise any contention  as   regards   the   authority   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   to  pass order of dismissal against him or as regards the  competence   or   formation   of   the   Executive   Council   to  decide the appeal.   The Executive Council thereafter  decided the appeal and by its order dated 08.02.2008  held that considering the charges proved against the  respondent,   it   would   not   be   in   the   interest   of   the  petitioner   university   to   continue   the   respondent   in  service   and   for   the   charges   proved   against   the  respondent,   there   could   not   be   any   other   punishment  except the punishment of dismissal.   Thus, the order  of   dismissal   passed   against   the   respondent   was  confirmed by the Executive Council.   Being aggrieved  by such order of Executive Council in appeal preferred  by the respondent, the respondent filed further appeal  being  Appeal   No.1  of  2008   before  the   Tribunal   under  Section   14(3)   of   the   Gujarat   Universities   Services  Tribunal Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short).  Before the  Page 4 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Tribunal,   though   final   hearing   was   concluded,   the  respondent   moved   amendment   in   the   appeal   with   some  documents   which   was   objected   to   by   the   petitioner.  However, the Tribunal allowed the amendment which was  challenged by filing Special Civil Application No.9432  of 2008 before this Court.  But, thereafter, the said  petition was disposed of after expunging the remarks  made   against   the   petitioner   and   its  advocate  by  the  Tribunal.     The   Tribunal   thereafter   passed   impugned  order   dated   30.03.2009,   whereby,   the   appeal   of   the  respondent was allowed and the order dated 08.07.2006  passed   by   the   Vice   Chancellor,   dismissing   the  petitioner   from   the   services   and   the   decision   dated  08.02.2008   passed   by   the   Executive   Council   of   the  University,   confirming   the   order   of   Vice   Chancellor  came to be quashed and set aside.  The petitioner was  directed to treat the respondent in continuous service  on the post of development officer by reinstating him  with full back­wages.

3. The   petitioner   has   challenged   the   impugned  judgment   and   order   of   the   Tribunal   on   manifold  grounds.  

Page 5 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT

4. I have heard learned advocate Mr.D.G.Chauhan with  Mr.Ronak Chauhan for the petitioner and the respondent  as party in person.  

5. Learned   advocate   Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   the  petitioner­University was established in the year 1920  and   its   aim   is   to   impart   and   embody   principles   of  father of nation Mahatma Gandhiji in all the persons  connected   with   University   for   building   the   nation.  Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   though   the   respondent   was  responsible to work in the interest of the University,  however,   started   indulging   into   the   activities  detrimental to the University.   Mr.Chauhan submitted  that   regular   departmental   inquiry   was   initiated  against   the   respondent,   wherein,   the   respondent   was  given full opportunity to defend         himself and in  such   inquiry   the   inquiry   officer,   who   was   retired  District  Judge,   held  that   out  of  21  charges   leveled  against   the   respondent,   14   charges   were   proved.  Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   the   respondent   neither  challenged the decision making process by the inquiry  officer nor challenged the finding recorded by inquiry  officer in his appeal before the Tribunal.  Mr.Chauhan  submitted that before the Tribunal, no oral evidence  Page 6 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT was adduced by the parties and it was agreed that the  appeal was to be decided on the basis of record of the  inquiry.   Mr.Chauhan submitted that the Tribunal was  deciding the appeal under Section 14 of the Act and  therefore, it has no jurisdiction to interfere in the  order   of   punishment   by   re­appreciating   the   evidence  available   on   record   of   the   inquiry   proceedings.  Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   the   respondent   had   never  challenged   the   authority   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   to  pass order of dismissal against him either before the  Trustee Mandal or before the Executive Council in his  appeal.     Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   when   the   Trustee  mandal has decided the appeal, the Tribunal expressed  its view that the Executive Council was the Appellate  Authority against the order of dismissal made by the  Vice   Chancellor.     Thereafter,   the   respondent   filed  appeal   before   the   Executive   Council.     Therefore,   it  was   not   open   to   the   respondent   to   urge   before   the  Tribunal   that   the   Vice   Chancellor   was   not   the  disciplinary authority, but the Executive Council was  the disciplinary authority.  Mr.Chauhan submitted that  the Tribunal had seriously erred in holding that the  Vice Chancellor was not the disciplinary authority and  Page 7 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT that   charges   leveled   against   the   respondent   are   not  the misconduct and not proved against the respondent.  Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   the   Gujarat   Vidhyapith  Services Rules of 1972 as also the Rules of 2005 both  provide   for   procedure   to   be   followed   for   initiating  the disciplinary action against the employees of the  University.  Rule 23 of 1972 Rules which is now Rule 6  of   2005   Rules,   provides   for   taking   action   for  misconduct   of   the   employee   and   authorises   the   Vice  Chancellor   to   pass   the   punishing   order   and   provides  for   remedy   of   appeal   before   the   Executive   Council  against the order of the Vice Chancellor.  Mr.Chauhan  submitted that in view of such clear provision made in  the Rules, it cannot be said that the Vice Chancellor  was   not   the   disciplinary   authority   for   passing   the  order of dismissal against the respondent. Mr.Chauhan  submitted that   in fact the Tribunal has recorded in  its   impugned   order   that   the   respondent   has   not  challenged   the   power,   authority   and   jurisdiction   of  the Vice Chancellor in passing dismissal order and in  undertaking   action   upto   passing   of   dismissal   order  when   the   respondent   preferred   appeal   before   the  Executive Council.  Mr.Chauhan submitted that in view  Page 8 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT of   such   undisputed   fact   of   not   challenging   the  authority   of   Vice   Chancellor   by   the   respondent   in  passing the dismissal order, the Tribunal ought not to  have   permitted   the   respondent   to   agitate   the   issue  about   the   authority   of   Vice   Chancellor   to   pass  dismissal   order   against   him.     Learned   advocate  Mr.Chauhan submitted that the charges leveled against  the respondent are all misconduct under the discipline  rules and the Tribunal was not right in holding that  the charges leveled against the petitioner could not  be said to be misconduct.   Mr.Chauhan submitted that  the Tribunal committed serious error in allowing the  respondent to place additional documents on record and  to   consider   such   documents   in   evidence,   though   the  respondent   has   not   proved   any   of   such   documents.  Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   after   the   final   arguments  were   over,   the   Tribunal   allowed   the   respondent   to  amend the appeal memo to take the contention that the  Vice   Chancellor   is   not   the   disciplinary   authority.  Mr.Chauhan submitted that such course was not open to  the   Tribunal.     Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   charges  proved   against   the   respondent   are   breach   of   conduct  rules and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in  Page 9 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT observing   that   the   charges   could   not   be   said   to   be  misconduct   as   per   the   Rules.     Mr.Chauhan   submitted  that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal  over   the   findings   recorded   by   the   inquiry   officer.  Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   all   the   members   of   the  appellate authority­Executive Council except the Vice  Chancellor  considered the appeal of the respondent on  all   the   points  and   also  considered   the  materials   on  record   for   confirming   the   order   of   dismissal   made  against   the   petitioner.     Against   such   order   of   the  Executive   Council,   the   Tribunal   had   very   limited  jurisdiction.   However, the Tribunal exceeded in its  jurisdiction   by   recording   its   own   finding   by re­appreciating   the   evidence,   which   was   not  permissible.     Mr.Chauhan   submitted   that   from   the  nature of misconduct proved against the respondent, it  clearly appears that the respondent acted against the  interest of the university and lost the confidence of  university   and   therefore,   the   Tribunal   ought   not   to  have interfered with the order of punishment made by  the   Vice   Chancellor   and   confirmed   by   the   Executive  Council   while   exercising   its   appeal   powers   under  Section   14   of   the   Act.     Mr.Chauhan   thus,   urged   to  Page 10 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT allow   the   petition   and   to   quash   and   set   aside   the  impugned order made by the Tribunal.   Mr.Chauhan has  relied   on   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Jumman   Khan  Versus State of U.P. and Another, reported in (1991) 1  SCC 752, in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Versus Union of  India and Others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, in the  case   of   Administrator,   Union   Territory   of   Dadra   and  Nagar   Haveli   Versus   Gulabhia   M.   Lad,   reported   in  (2010) 5 SCC 775, in the case of State of Punjab and  Others   Versus   Ram   Singh   Ex­Constable,   reported   in  (1992) 4 SCC 54, in the case of Gokul Bhagaji Patil  Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in  (2007) 2 SCC 475, in the case of Jumman Khan Versus  State   of   U.P.   And   Another,   reported   in (1991)   1   SCC   752,   in   the   case   of   U.P.   State   Road  Transport Corporation Versus Vinod Kumar, reported in  (2008)   1   SCC   115,   in   the   case   of   Divisional  Controller,   KSRTC   (NWKRTC)   Versus   A.T.Mane,   reported  in   (2005)   3   SCC   254   and   in   the   case   of   Divisional  Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation  Versus M.G. Vittal Rao, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 442. 

6. As   against   the   above   arguments,   the   respondent,  as party in person, submitted that as per Rule 15 of  Page 11 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT the   Rules,   Executive   Council   is   the   disciplinary  authority and the Vice Chancellor has limited power of  taking action upto the stage of collecting the inquiry  report and placing it before the Executive Council for  passing necessary final order.  He submitted that his  appointing authority was not a Vice Chancellor, but he  was   given   appointment   order   by   Registrar   which   was  approved by the Executive Council.  He submitted that  as per the resolution dated 19.05.2005 passed by the  Trustees of the University, the inquiry was to be held  against   him   for     the     irregularities     allegedly  committed   by   him   after   2004.   He   submitted   that   the  charges leveled against him are not misconduct as per  Rule 23 of 1972 Rules. Therefore, Central Rules were  stated   to   be   followed   for   initiating   action   against  him   but   such   central   rules   are   not   adopted   by   the  University.     He   submitted   that   all   the   appointments  made   during   his   tenure   were   approved   by   the   higher  authorities and it was none of his responsibility to  take any final decision for selection and appointments  for   which   he   was   departmentally   proceeded.     He  submitted that when the Vice Chancellor lacked power  and authority to pass order of dismissal against him,  Page 12 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT even if such point was not raised in his appeal before  the   Executive   Council,   he   was   not   precluded   from  raising the same before the Tribunal.  He referred to  various documents from the record of the appeal filed  by him before the Tribunal to point out that all the  decisions for which he was made responsible were taken  by the selection committee and the higher authorities  and he did not commit any irregularity in the matter  of   taking   any   decision.     He   submitted   that   if   the  irregularities   alleged   against   him   are   not   the  misconduct   described   in   the   Rules,   then   on   the  findings recorded as regards such irregularities, no  order of dismissal could have been passed against him.  He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that  the alleged irregularities were not misconduct and for  that purpose, the Tribunal has examined the evidence  on record of the inquiry and found that the charges  held proved by the inquiry officer against him cannot  be   said   to   be   misconduct   proved   against   him   and   in  holding   so,   the   Tribunal   cannot   be   said   to   have  exceeded in its jurisdiction.   He submitted that the  Tribunal has wide powers under Section 14 of the Act  to re­appreciate the evidence to find out whether an  Page 13 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT employee has committed any misconduct.   The Tribunal  therefore   cannot   be   said   to   have   committed   any  jurisdictional error in appreciating the evidence and  finding that the order of dismissal passed against him  could not stand scrutiny of law.   He submitted that  this Court is exercising powers under Article 227 of  the   Constitution   of   India   and  it  can   interfere   with  the judgment or order of the Tribunal if it finds that  Tribunal   committed   any   error   of   jurisdiction.     He  submitted that he always acted in the best interest of  the University and while so acting when he brought to  the   notice   of   the   university,   some   irregularities  committed by the than Vice Chancellor, it was decided  to   initiate   action   against   him   in   vengeance.     He  submitted   that   it   was   because   of   the   confidence  imposed in him by the University, he decided to point  out   the   irregularities   committed   by   the   then   Vice  Chancellor   and   by   other   higher   officer,   pursuant   to  which the Vice Chancellor had to deposit Rs.50,000/­  wrongly availed by him and therefore it could not be  said that the university had lost confidence in him.  He   thus,   urged   that   the   Tribunal   having   recorded  findings that he has not committed any misconduct and  Page 14 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT that   the   Vice   Chancellor   could   not   have   acted   as  disciplinary authority, this Court may not interfere  with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal  while   exercising   powers   under   Article   227   of   the  Constitution of India.   He has relied on decision in  the   case   of   L.N.   Aswathama   and   Anr.   v.   P.   Prakash,  reported in 2009 (9) Scale 658.  He has tendered xerox  copies   of   the   other   judgments   without   citation   and  some without full text.  

7. Having heard learned advocate Mr.Chauhan for the  petitioner   and   the   respondent   in   person,   it   appears  that the respondent was served with charge­sheet for  21 charges like misguiding the higher authority in the  matter   of   selection   resulting   into   appointments   of  unqualified   persons,   sanctioning   leave   to   the  employees   who   are   not   otherwise   entitled   to   said  leave,   not   bringing   to   the   notice   of   the   higher  authorities   the   requirement   of   following   guidelines  for appointments, obtaining for himself senior scale  by   misguiding   Vice   Chancellor,   though   he   was   not  eligible for the same, obtaining housing loan for more  amount   than   entitlement,   disobeying   orders   of   the  superiors, not acting as per the instructions of UGC,  Page 15 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT sanctioning   increments   to   the   employees   without   any  qualification, exceeding in his power in the financial  and administrative matters.  

8. To   hold   inquiry   into   such   charges,   retired  District  Judge  was   appointed   as   inquiry   officer.     A  copy of the inquiry report is placed at Annexure­A­I.  As stated in the inquiry report, out of 21 charges,  charge   No.7   and   20   were   dropped   and   an   inquiry   was  held   for   19   charges.     On   perusal   of   the   inquiry  report, it appears that the respondent was given all  the documents relied in the inquiry and also given the  names of the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the  university.   It   also   appears   that   the   respondent   was  also provided assistance of a defense representative  of his choice.  Thus, there was a fair opportunity of  hearing given to the respondent during inquiry.   The  respondent has also not made any grievance as regards  decision making process in the inquiry.  

9. It   appears   that   on   the   basis   of   the   evidence  available   with   the   inquiry   officer,   the   inquiry  officer held that out of 19 charges, 14 charges are  proved against the respondent.  

Page 16 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT

10. The   respondent   was   then   served   with   the   show  cause   notice   with   the   copy   of   the   inquiry   report  calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be  imposed   major   penalty   of   dismissal   from   service   as  provided in Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Class,  Control   and   Appeal)   Rules,   1965   to   which,   the  respondent gave his reply.  

11. On   the   basis   of   the   inquiry   report   and   after  considering   the   reply   of   the   respondent   against   the  show   cause   notice,   the   Vice   Chancellor   passed   order  dated   08.07.2006,   dismissing   the   respondent   from  service.     In   this   order,   the   Vice   Chancellor   has  considered   the   findings   recorded   on   all   the   charges  held proved against the respondent and also considered  the representation made by the respondent and recorded  that   after   full   opportunity   was   given   to   the  respondent,   the   respondent   was   found   guilty   of   14  charges   and   therefore,   the   order   of   dismissal   is  passed against him.

12. The   above   said   order   after   its   confirmation   by  the   Executive   Council   was   the   subject   matter   of  challenge before the Tribunal in appeal filed by the  Page 17 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT respondent under Section 14 of the Act.  The Tribunal  has   recorded   in   para­34   of   its   judgment   that   the  charges leveled against the respondent do not amount  to misconduct irrespective of the aspect whether they  are   proved   or   not.     The  respondent   contended  before  this Court that nowhere in the Service Rule of 1972,  the   charges   leveled   against   him   are   described   as  misconduct.   But, the Court finds that Rule 23(1) of  1972   Rules   takes   in   its   sweep   any   conduct   of   an  employee   which   can   be   said   to   be   wrong,   improper,  unlawful behavior in the context of the functions to  be   undertaken   by   such   employee.     The   Tribunal,  however,   construed   the   phrase   wrong   conduct   used   in  vernacular   equivalent   to   misbehavior   and   not  misconduct.  

13. The word misconduct is defined in various ways in  Law   Lexicon,   as   per   which,  the   word  'misconduct'   is  sufficiently   wide   expression   and   it   covers   conduct,  which, in any way renders a man unfit for his office  or   is   likely   to   tamper   with   or   embrace   the  administration.  It is further defined as any unlawful  behavior   by   any   public   officer   in   relation   to   his  duties of office, willful to his character. The term  Page 18 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT misconduct embraces Acts which the office holder had  no   right   to   perform   or   performed   improperly   and  failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to  act. 

14. In   the   case   of   Ram   Singh   Ex­Constable   (supra),  relied on by Mr.Chauhan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has  observed in para No.6 as under:

"6. Thus   it   could   be   seen   that   the   word   'misconduct'   though   not   capable   of   precise   definition,   on   reflection   receives   its   connotation from the context, the delinquency   in   its   performance   and   its   effect   on   the   discipline   and   the   nature   of   the   duty.     It   may   involve   moral   turpitude,   it   must   be   improper   or   wrong   behavior;   unlawful   behavior,   willful   in   character;   forbidden   act,   a   transgression   of  established   and  definite   rule   of   action   or  code   of   conduct  but not mere error of judgment, carelessness   or negligence in performance of the duty; the   act complained of bears forbidden quality or   character.     Its   ambit   has   to   be   construed   with reference to the subject matter and the   context wherein the term occurs, regard being   had   to   the   scope   of   the   statute   and   the   public purpose it seeks to serve.  The police   service   is   a   disciplined   service   and   it   requires   to   maintain   strict   discipline.  

Page 19 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT

Laxity   in   this   behalf   erodes   discipline   in   the   service   causing   serious   effect   in   the   maintenance of law and order."  

  Thus, considering the meaning of the word misconduct  as per Law Lexicon and as explained by Hon'ble Supreme  Court, the view taken by the Tribunal that the charges  leveled   against   the   respondent   do   not   amount   to  misconduct, does not appear to be well founded.  

15. As   regards   the   issue   about   the   power   and  authority   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   to   act   as  disciplinary authority for passing order of dismissal  against   the   respondent   is   concerned,   the   Tribunal  though came to the conclusion that the final authority  to pass order of dismissal vested with the Executive  Council   and   not   with   the   Vice   Chancellor,   however,  since, the Executive Council has approved the order of  Vice   Chancellor   dismissing   the   respondent   from  service, the Executive Council could be taken to have  acted as disciplinary authority.  

16. The   respondent,   however,   contended   before   this  Court that since, the Vice Chancellor is not empowered  under Rule 23 of Service Rules, 1972 of the University  Page 20 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT to   act   as   disciplinary   authority,   the   order   of  dismissal   passed   against   him   by   the   Vice   Chancellor  was without jurisdiction.  It is required to be noted  that   the   Tribunal   in   its   judgment   and   order   has  clearly   observed   that   the   respondent   has   not  challenged   the   power   or   authority   of   the   Vice  Chancellor   while   preferring   the   appeal   before   the  Executive   Council.   Irrespective   of   the   above  observations of the Tribunal, from Rule 23 of the 1972  Rules, it clearly appears that the Vice Chancellor is  given the power to take necessary action on the basis  of the report of the inquiry officer and against his  order,   remedy   of   appeal   is   provided   before   the  Executive Council.  The respondent then contended that  Clause   15   of   the   constitution   of   the   petitioner  university provides for taking of disciplinary action  only by the Executive Council and therefore the Vice  Chancellor was to just act till the stage of receiving  inquiry   report   and   not   to   act   as   disciplinary  authority.  Such contention deserves to be rejected as  the   service   Rules   for   employees   of   the   University  framed in the year 1972 were in exercise of powers to  frame   such   rules   under   Clause   15(10)   of   the  Page 21 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Constitution   of   the   University,   which   specifically  provides for making of Rules for service conditions of  the   employees   of   the   University   and   for   doing   all  things   required   to   be   done.     Therefore,   the   service  rules when made on the basis of such rule making power  by   the   University,   inter­alia,   providing   for   taking  necessary   action   by   Vice   Chancellor   pursuant   to   the  inquiry   report,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   Vice  Chancellor   had   no   power   to   act   as   disciplinary  authority.   In view of this clear provision made in  Rule   23,   the   contention   of   the   respondent   that   the  Vice   Chancellor   lacked   power   to   act   as   disciplinary  authority cannot be accepted.  

17. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contention of  the   respondent   that   by   resolution   dated   09.05.2005,  the Mandal of the University resolved to take action  against   the   respondent   in   respect   of   the  mismanagement/irregularities   alleged   to   have   been  committed   by   the   respondent   as   development   officer  after   01.04.2004,   and   therefore,   it   was   not   within  power   and   authority   of   the   Registrar   and   the   Vice  Chancellor   to   issue   charge­sheet   for   the   alleged  irregularities/charges not covered by the period from  Page 22 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT 01.04.2004   to   08.07.2006.     The   Tribunal   held   that  except   charge   No.21,  which  is  not   proved,  all   other  charges were beyond the scope of the resolution dated  09.05.2005.     The   Tribunal   thus   reached   to   the  conclusion   in   para   154   of   its  judgment  that   charges  no.1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,   and   19   are   beyond   the   scope   of  the   resolution   and   are   therefore   required   to   be  quashed. However, perusing the resolution, it appears  that   it   was   decided   to   take   action   against   the  respondent for his past mismanagement as development  officer.   Use of phrase during last tenure would not  restrict   the   power   of   the   disciplinary   authority   to  take   action   against   the   respondent   for   the   period  prior to 01.04.2004.   The disciplinary authority was  always   entitled   to   take   action   for   the   alleged  irregularities/mismanagement of the respondent during  his service tenure.  Therefore, the contention raised  by the respondent that all charges except charge No.21  could   not   have   been   the   subject   matter   of   inquiry  cannot be accepted.   The Tribunal has gone wrong in  accepting the above contention of the respondent.  

18. It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   two   of   the  charges against the respondent i.e. charge no.11 for  Page 23 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT getting senior scale approved for him and charge no.12  for utilising loan amount are held not proved.  

19. All   other   charges   which   are   held   proved   by  inquiry officer against the respondent are about not  properly guiding the selection committee for selection  and appointments on different posts in the university  and   for   giving   monetary   benefits   like   pay   fixation  etc. to some employees.  

20. The Tribunal has recorded that the respondent has  not played any role in the selection of the persons  for the appointments in university. The Tribunal has  also recorded that the appointments were made on the  basis of selection by the Selection Committee and with  the   consent   of   the   then  Vice   Chancellors.     The  Tribunal also recorded that the UGC has not objected  to any appointments and no appointment for which the  respondent   is   made   responsible   is   canceled   by   the  University. Thus, on examining the evidence on record  of   inquiry,   the   Tribunal   found   that   the   respondent  cannot be said to have committed any misconduct.  

21. However,   the   question   raised   on   behalf   of   the  petitioner­University   is   that   the   Tribunal   has   no  Page 24 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT jurisdiction   to   re­appreciate   the   evidence   while  exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act. Section  14 of the Act reads as under:­ "14 (1)   No   University   employee   shall   be   debarred or removed from University service   or reduced in rank nor shall his service be   otherwise   terminated   by   the   University  except   after   an   inquiry   in   which   the   employee   as   been   informed   of   the   charges  against   him   and   given   a   reasonable   opportunity   of   being   heard   in   respect   of  those charges:

Provided   that   nothing   in   this   sub­section   shall apply to a University employee who is   appointed temporarily for a period less than   a year or as employee appointed temporarily   on   a   leave   vacancy   for   the   period   of   such   vacancy.

(2) No   penalty,   other   than   a   penalty   referred   to   in   sub­section   (7)   shall   be   imposed on a University employee unless such   employee   is   given   a   reasonable   opportunity   of being heard.

(3) A   University   employee   aggrieved   by   an  order   of   any   penalty   imposed   on   him   under   sub­section   (1)   may   make   an   appeal   to   the   Tribunal within a period of thirty days from   the   date   of   the   order   passed   by   the   disciplinary authority.    

22. As per Section 14(3) of the Act, remedy of appeal  against the punishing order of dismissal, removal or  reduction in rank passed by the university is provided  for the employee.  The Tribunal therefore is empowered  to   examine   legality   or   otherwise   of   such   punishing  Page 25 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT order   in   the   appeal   preferred   by   the   employee.   For  such purpose, the Tribunal can certainly examine the  evidence and other material available on the record of  the   inquiry   proceedings   to   find   out   whether   the  charges leveled against the employee could be said to  have been proved and whether the conclusion reached by  the   inquiry   officer   and   the   punishment   imposed   by  disciplinary authority would stand in the eye of law.  Though the grounds as regards adequacy of evidence or  reliability   of   evidence   may   not   be   permitted   to   be  canvassed before the Tribunal, however, on examination  of evidence as it is available on inquiry proceedings  if   conclusion   of   the   guilt   reached   by   the   inquiry  officer   is   not   found   tenable,   the   Tribunal   has  jurisdiction   to   hold   that   the   punishing   order   is  illegal   and   cannot   be   sustained.     Therefore,   the  contention   raised   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner  university   that   the   Tribunal   lacked   jurisdiction   to  interfere   with   the   finding   recorded   by   the   inquiry  officer   and   to   interfere   with   the   punishing   order  while exercising powers under Section 14(3) of the Act  cannot be accepted.

23. In   the   case   of   B.C.Chaturvedi   (supra),   the  Page 26 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that judicial review is  not   an   appeal   from   a   decision,   but   a   review   of   the  manner   in   which   the   decision   is   made.     Power   of  judicial   review   is   meant   to   ensure   that   individual  receives   fair   treatment   and   not   to   ensure   that  conclusion that the authority reaches is necessarily  correct in eye of the Court.   However, it is further  observed   that   the   Court   or   Tribunal   may   interfere  where the authority held the proceedings against the  delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the  rules   of   natural   justice   or   in   violation   of   the  statutory rules prescribing mode of inquiry or where  the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary  authority is based on no evidence.  In the conclusion  if finding is such as no reasonable person would have  ever   reached,   the   Court/Tribunal   may   interfere   with  the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so  as to make it appropriate to the facts of the case. 

24. In   the   case   of   Gulabhia   L.   Lad   (supra)   Hon'ble  Supreme   Court   has   held   as   regards   imposition   of  punishment that the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere  with   the   discretion   exercised   by   the   disciplinary  authority   or   with   the   discretion   exercised   by   the  Page 27 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT appellate   authority   with   regard   to   imposition   of  punishment   unless   such   discretion   suffers   from  illegality or material procedural irregularity or that  would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal.

25. In the case of A.T.Mane (supra), Hon'ble Supreme  Court   has   held   and   observed   that   once   a   domestic  Tribunal   based   on   evidence   comes   to   a   particular  conclusion, normally it is not open to the Appellate  Tribunal and the Courts to substitute their subjective  opinion   in   place   of   the   one   arrived   at   by   domestic  Tribunal.

26. In   the   case   of   M.G.   Vittal   Rao   (supra)   Hon'ble  Supreme Court has held and observed that standard of  proof in the domestic inquiry is of preponderance of  probabilities   unlike   the   proof   of   beyond   reasonable  doubt required in criminal case.     

27. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by  Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has gone through the  reasoning   given   by   the   Tribunal   qua   each   of   the  charges held proved against the respondent in inquiry.  This   Court   has   also   gone   through   the   evidence   on  record   of   the   inquiry   proceedings   and   the   findings  Page 28 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT recorded  by  the   inquiry  officer   to   find   out   whether  the   Tribunal   is   justified   in   holding   that   the  respondent is not responsible for the charges leveled  against him. 

28. The   Charge   No.1   held   proved   in   inquiry   against  the respondent is that the respondent did not act as  per   the   UGC   guidelines/criteria   in   the   matter   of  appointment of Dr. Jamnadas K. Savalia as professor.  For   such  lapse  of  the   respondent,   the   selection  for  the   post   of   professor   was   made   contrary   to   the   UGC  guidelines.  In this respect the respondent misguided  the   selection   committee   and   higher   officers   by   not  bringing to their notice the correct facts.          

29. The   inquiry   officer   has   found   from   the  application   of   Dr.Savalia   and   documents   produced   by  him   that   Dr.Savalia   did   not   have   10   years   teaching  experience   at   postgraduate   level   and   still   he   was  called for interview for the post of reader. However,  he was not given appointment of reader.   He was then  selected  by  the   selection   committee  for   the   post   of  professor.  The respondent did not draw the attention  of the selection committee to the UGC guidelines, but  kept back the true facts from the selection committee  Page 29 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT and played important role in the matter of appointment  of Dr.Savalia in breach of the UGC guidelines.   The  respondent thus did not perform his duty honestly and  indulged into irregularity.  

30. The Tribunal on examining oral evidence of sole  witness of the university, the evidence of the Ex­Vice  Chancellor   Shri   Jitendra   Desai   examined   by   the  respondent and on examining the documentary evidence  found  that  Mr.Savalia  was  first  selected   by the  selection     committee     as        reader. 

Page 30 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT However,  since  the   Vice  Chancellor   was  told   by   Shri  Prabhudas   Kasundhara   from   physical   education  department and another professor that there was a need  for   appointment   of   professor   instead   of   reader,  Mr.Savalia was not appointed as reader and thereafter  on   note   put   up   by   the   Assistant   Registrar   Shri  Jayendrabhai   Mehta   and   further   note   put   up   by   the  respondent   in   the   capacity   of   the   acting   Registrar,  decision   was   taken   by   the   Vice   Chancellor   to   offer  appointment of professor to Dr.Savalia.  The Tribunal  has recorded that Vice Chancellor was made fully aware  about   the   details   of   advertisement,   educational  qualification   of   Dr.Savalia   and   eligibility   criteria  prescribed by the UGC and other necessary aspects and  the members of the selection committee were also made  aware   about   the   above   aspects   and   thereafter   the  decision was taken to give appointment to Mr.Savalia.  For   such   decision   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   and   the  selection committee, the respondent could not be held  responsible.     The  Tribunal  has   recorded   that  as  per  the evidence of the Vice Chancellor who took decision  with selection committee for appointment of Dr.Savalia  as professor, the respondent had no role  to play in  Page 31 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT the   selection   of   Dr.Savalia.     The   Tribunal   has  recorded that the Vice Chancellor has in his evidence  stated   that   information   regarding   appointment   of  Dr.Savalia was sent to UGC, which the UGC accepted and  even extended grant for such purpose.  

31. This   Court   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the  inquiry as regards the selection of Dr.Savalia for the  post   of   professor,   finds   that   pursuant   to   earlier  advertisement   for   the   post   of   reader   in   physical  education,   Dr.Savalia   was   selected   for   the   post   of  reader. The qualification and eligibility requirement  for   the   post   of   reader   was   of   good   academic   record  with   Doctoral   degree   and   5   years   of   teaching  experience.     From  the   note  dated  18.03.2001   at   page  No.91   put   up   by   the   respondent   and   the   Assistant  Registrar it appears that on the basis of experience  as P.G. Teacher from 1993 and qualification of Ph.D.  acquired   by   Dr.Savalia   in   1997,   the   respondent  presented   his   view   that   Dr.Savalia   was   holding  qualification   for   the   post   of   reader   and   sought  guidance for his appointment.   But, as stated by the  Vice Chancellor in his deposition, he was advised not  to proceed to fill up the post of reader as there was  Page 32 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT a   requirement   for   the   post   of   professor.     It   was  thereafter   an   advertisement   dated   02.08.2001   was  published   on   04.08.2001   in   daily   newspaper   'Gujarat  Samachar'   inviting   applications   for   the   post   of  professor   in   physical   education.     Copy   of   the  advertisement is at page No.57 of the record of the  inquiry.  

32. Pursuant   to   this   advertisement,   Dr.Savalia   sent  his   application   through   the   institution   named   as  Purani Vyayam Mahavidhyalaya, Rajpipla, where he was  serving.     In   this   application   he   has   given   details  about   his   qualifications,   mentioning   that   he   was  recognized as P.G. Teacher from June 1993  and he has  also   acquired   qualification   of   Ph.D.     He   has   also  provided other details about his research work.  This  application is dated 28.08.2001.   It appears that as  per   the   details   provided   in   the   application,  he  has  not completed 10 years of experience as P.G.Teacher,  but,   completed   around   8   years   of   experience.     In  respect of this application for the post of professor,  the respondent did not put up any note expressing his  view about fulfillment of qualification or seeking any  direction   for   appointment   of   Dr.Savalia.     As   found  Page 33 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT from   page   No.101   of   the   inquiry   record,   Dr.Savalia  appeared before the selection committee comprising of  the   Vice   Chancellor   Shri   Jitendrabhai   Desai,   who   is  one   of   the   witnesses   of   the   respondent,   and   three  experts as well as two other members.  The respondent  and   Assistant   Registrar   Shri   Jayendrabhai   Mehta   are  shown   to   have   remained   present   at   the   time   of  interview.     The   selection   committee   then   selected  Dr.Savalia   and   recommended   for   his   appointment   as  professor.     Based   on   such   recommendation   of   the  selection   committee,     appointment   order   dated  20.03.2002 was issued to Dr.Savalia by the respondent  clearly mentioning therein that after the interview of  Dr.Savalia on 20.03.2002, as per the recommendation of  the   selection   committee  and   with  the   consent  of  the  Vice Chancellor, Dr.Savalia was appointed on probation  for   the   period   from   20.03.2002   or   from   the   date   he  resumed   duty   till   19.03.2003   on   the   conditions  mentioned in the said order.  

33. Shri Jitendra Desai who was Vice Chancellor and  head   of   the   selection   committee,   in   his   deposition  stated that after the letter from the UGC was received  for guidance for appointment of Dr.Savalia as reader,  Page 34 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Shri   Prabhudas   Kasundhara   from   Physical   Education  Department   and   another   professor   met   him   and   stated  that there was a need for appointment of a professor  and   therefore   it   was   decided   to   postpone   giving  appointment   to   the   post   of   reader.   Thereafter,  Dr.Savalia was selected by the selection committee for  the post of professor and after his appointment, the  details about his eligibility for the post were sent  to   UGC   and   UGC   approved   his   appointment   and   also  accepted to release grant for his appointment. In such  procedure   for   the   appointment   of   Dr.Savalia,   no  irregularity   was   found   committed.     In   cross  examination,   this   witness   stated   that   whatever   the  applications   received   for   pursuant   to   the  advertisement the head of the departments verified the  same and whatever the correspondence with the UGC, the  Registrar would be aware about such correspondence and  such   correspondences   are   to   be   placed   before   the  Selection committee in connection with the appointment  to   be   made.     By   such   evidence   in  the   cross  examination, it cannot be said that the respondent had  kept back any material from the selection committee or  had deliberately misguided the selection committee for  Page 35 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT appointment of Dr.Savalia.   It may be that selection  of   Dr.Savalia   was   made   by   the   selection   committee  though   he   was   not   fully   satisfying   the   eligibility  criteria as required by UGC.  However, the  say of the  Vice   Chancellor   in   his   deposition   in   support  of  the  respondent that the selection committee took decision  to   recommend   appointment   of   Dr.Savalia   as   professor  and that such appointment was approved by the UGC and  UGC when released grant for appointment for Dr.Savalia  could not be ignored.   The appointment of Dr.Savalia  was   on   probation   for   a   period   of   one   year.     Such  appointment   is   not   stated   to   be   not   continued  thereafter.     In   respect   of   such   appointment,   the  respondent   cannot   be   said   to   have   committed   any  irregularity so as to term the same as misconduct.  

34. The   Charge   No.2   held   proved   against   the  respondent   is   that   the   respondent   showed   favour   and  did not act impartially and honestly by accepting time  barred application of one Shri P.G.Shilpakar for  the  post of lecturer and placing such application  before  the   selection   committee   and   getting   him   appointed.  The   inquiry   officer   has   found   that   an   advertisement  was given for the post of lecturer in bio­gas research  Page 36 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT center and as per the advertisement, the persons with  qualification in Microbiology Subject were invited and  the   selection   was   to   be   made   of   the   persons   having  education qualification and experience fixed by UGC.  The   application   was   to   reach   to   the   university   by  31.01.2002.     However,   the   respondent   accepted   the  application   of   Shri   Shilpkar,   which   was   received   on  04.02.2002 and even corrected the date of receipt of  application   from   04.02.2002   to   02.02.2002.     It   is  further   observed   that   in   bio­gas   research   center   at  Sadara, though lecturer in the subject of Microbiology  was   to   be   appointed,   the   respondent   scored   out   the  word   Microbiology   from   the   appointment   letter   dated  21.03.2002 and issued new appointment letter to Shri  Pratik Shilpakar, who was graduate in Agriculture and  postgraduate in the Geography and having Ph.D. in the  soil science.  Thus, he was not expert on the subject  of   Microbiology.     The   inquiry   officer   discussed   the  oral  evidence   of   the   two   witnesses   examined   by   the  respondent   with   the   evidence   of   witness   examined   by  the university and observed that as per the say of the  then   Vice   Chancellor   Shri   Jitendrabhai   Desai,   the  subject in which Shri Shilpakar was given appointment  Page 37 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT was   technical   and   for   guidance   in   respect   of   such  subject, Dr.Godboley who was expert on the subject had  remained present in the selection committee.  Another  witness   Dr.Pradipkumar   Babulal   Aacharya   examined   by  the   respondent   stated   that   the   word   'Microbiology'  used   was   a   clerical   mistake.     However,   the   inquiry  officer   recorded   that   the   respondent   has   committed  irregularity   in   the   matter   of   appointment   of   Shri  Shilpakar by receiving his time barred application and  by   not   properly   representing   before   the   selection  committee   as   regards   the   UGC   guidelines   for   the  appointment of Shri Shilpakar.

            The Tribunal has examined the evidence for this  charge   and   has   recorded   that   the   witness   of   the  university has deposed in the tune of statement of the  imputation.  But, witness Shri Jitendra Desai, Ex­Vice  Chancellor examined by the respondent stated that the  application   was   to   be   examined   by   the   head  of   the  department   of   the  concerned   subject  and   the  head   of  the   department   prepared   statement/synopsis   of   the  candidates.     The   application   of   Shri   Shilpakar   was  received late as it came through post.   In order to  see   that   rightful   candidate   may   not   be   deprived   of  Page 38 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT opportunity, relaxation of three days was granted for  accepting the application received through the post.  It   is   further   stated   by   this   witness   that   this  precedent of accepting delayed application received in  post was in force since long.  It is further stated by  him that it was a mistake in mentioning Microbiology  subject   on   the   top   of   the   report   of   the   selection  committee.    The   Tribunal   has   observed   that   from  the  inward   register,   it   appears   that   the   application   of  one   Shri   Jitendra   Baghai   was   also   received   on  06.02.2002 and he was also called for interview.   On  examining   evidence,   the   Tribunal   found   that   the  accusation against the respondent could not be said to  be proved.  

35. In respect of this charge, this Court on perusal  of record of the inquiry finds that an advertisement  (page No.105) was issued inviting applications for the  post   of   lecturer   so   as   to   reach   on   or   before  31.01.2002.  The application of Shri Shilpakar was in­ warded on 02.02.2002.  On the bottom left hand side of  the application a date appears to have been corrected  and circled, but with this application Shri Shilpakar  also attached application format which also contains  Page 39 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT his bio­data signed by him on 30.01.2002.  It appears  from   page   No.123   that   10   candidates   including   Shri  Shilpakar   were   called   for   interview.     The   selection  committee   comprised   of   7   members   including   the   then  Vice   Chancellor   Shri   Jitendra   Desai,   three   experts,  one   of   whom   was   Dr.Godboley.     The   proceeding   of  selection reveals that respondent remained present as  acting   Registrar   with   Shri   Jayendrabhai   Mehta   as  Assistant Registrar.   It further reveals that out of  10 candidates, 6 candidates including Shri Shilpakar  remained present.  The selection committee recommended  name of Shri Pratikbhai Shilpakar at Sr.No.1 and Shri  Jay   Barge   at   Sr.No.2   for   the   post   of   lecturer.     It  further   appears   from   page   No.125   that   order   of  appointment   dated   21.03.2002   was   prepared,   but   not  signed by the respondent and in this order, the word  'Microbiology'  is  scored   out.     Then  at  page   No.129,  the appointment order dated 21.03.2002 issued to Shri  Shilpakar is found.  Such appointment is for one year  on probation period.   In respect of this charge, the  witness   Shri   Dineshbhai   Rana   examined   by   the  University has stated that the appointment of lecturer  was made in the subject of soil science though it was  Page 40 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT to be made in the subject of Microbiology, for which  the respondent was responsible and though there was no  authority to accept the time barred application, still  such   time   barred   application   was   accepted.     It   is  stated   that   the   respondent   acted   contrary   to   the  advertisement   and   committed   serious   misconduct   by  favouring   Shri   Shilpakar.     Witness   Shri   Jitendra  Desai, Ex­Vice Chancellor examined by the respondent  stated   that   relaxation   of   three   days   was   given   to  those candidates whose applications were received late  in the post.   Such practice was in force since long.  The head of the department checked the application and  then   the   applications   with   other   material   were  presented before him and after his consent for holding  interview, the candidates were informed about the date  and   time   of   the   interviews.     He   has   further   stated  that it was he, who selected the names of the experts  to  remain   present  in  the   selection   committee  at   the  time   of   interview.     The   details   of   the   candidates  interviewed as also the UGC guidelines were provided  to   the   members   of   the   selection   committee.   Due  importance to the opinion of the experts was given and  it was only after considering the views of the members  Page 41 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT of   the   selection   committee,   the   selection   was   made  unanimously.  The Registrar remained present as member  secretary   but,   not   as   member   of   the   Selection  Committee and he had no say in the selection.   After  the   selection   of   the   candidates   by   the   interview  committee,   the   candidates   were   offered   appointments.  Such   appointments   were   approved   by   the   UGC.     This  deposition of the then Vice Chancellor is general for  selection and appointments made during his tenure and  in   specific   he   has   stated   about   Shilpakar   that   the  selection   of   Shri   Shilpakar   was   by   the   interview  committee,   where   Dr.Godbloey   and   other   experts  remained present and the selection was made according  to their opinion.  

36. Though, it is not in dispute that the application  of Shri Shilpakar was received after two days from the  deadline fixed for the receipt of the application for  the   post   of   lecturer,   however,   in   view   of   the  deposition of the then Vice Chancellor, stating that  the practice of accepting the time barred application  received in post was being followed, it cannot be said  that the respondent was responsible for accepting the  time barred application and by such late acceptance of  Page 42 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT the application, it cannot be said that the respondent  favored   Shri   Shilpakar   for   appointment   as   lecturer,  especially,   when   selection   of   Shri   Shilpakar   was   by  the   selection   committee   of   at   least   8   members.   The  advertisement   is   found   at   page   No.107.     By   this  advertisement, the applications invited were for the  post of professor, reader and of lecturer.  It is not  stated in the advertisement that the post of lecturer  was   to   be   filled   in   the   subject   of   'Microbiology'.  For all the posts, specialization in at least one of  the following fields was preferred.

        "Anaerobic   digestion/Biodegradation/Fermentation  technology/Waste   Water   treatment/Knowledge   in   biogas  technology, designing and extension services of bio­ gas plant."       

37. Shri   Shilpakar   in   his   application   stated   that  during his M.Sc. and Ph.D., he has done research work  on fermentation of cow dung, during his research work,  the topics were Microbiological Chelation of Iron and  for his Ph.D. research Topic was Vermi composting of  lignocellulolytic   plant   residue   and   its   effect   on  growth and yield of wheat­green gram.  If the experts  had   selected   such   candidate   from   amongst   other  Page 43 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT candidates and when advertisement did not specifically  provide for filling post of lecturer in Microbiology  subject,   though,   in   general   information   in   the  advertisement   it   is   stated  that   the  center   in   which  appointment   was   to   be   made   was   also   engaged   in  teaching   Microbiology   at   UG   and   PG   level,   the  respondent   was   not   responsible   for   considering   the  application of Shri Shilpakar for the post of lecturer  by   the   selection   committee   and   for   scoring   out   the  word   'Microbiology'   from   the   order   of   appointment  which   was   prepared   and   kept   unsigned.     The   inquiry  officer is thus not justified in holding that charge  No.2 is proved against the respondent.   The Tribunal  has   therefore   committed   no   error   in   coming   to   the  conclusion   on   examining   the   evidence   on   record   that  the respondent has not committed any misconduct in the  matter of appointment of Shri Shilpakar.    

38. The   charge   No.3   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that the respondent did not act as per  the   UGC   guidelines   in   the   matter   of   appointment   of  Shri   Chintanbhai   Gohil   as   lecturer.     Though,   the  respondent   asked   for   exemption   from   NET   by   letter  dated   19.02.2002   and   the   reply   to   such   letter   was  Page 44 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT received   by   him   on   09.03.2002   to   follow   UGC  instruction,   the   respondent   committed   breach   of   UGC  instruction   and   thus,   committed   misconduct   by   not  acting   impartially,   honestly.     The   inquiry   officer  found   from   the   documents   at   page   No.149   that   no  relaxation   from   the   UGC   guidelines   was   given   and  proposal   for   exemption   from   NET   was   not   accepted,  still Shri. Chintankumar was given appointment.   The  Tribunal has recorded that the then Vice Chancellor in  his deposition stated that the advertisement was given  thrice, but, no application from candidate having NET  or SLET cleared was received and therefore, there was  no option except to give appointment on condition to  clear NET in the same manner followed in other cases.  The said witness also stated that the appointment was  approved by the UGC.  

39. This Court finds from the inquiry record at page  No.139   that   a   letter   dated   18/19­02­2002   was   found  written   to   the   UGC   by   the   respondent,   asking   for  exemption   from   'NET'   for   the   post   of   lecturer,   in  computer application on ad­hoc basis.  It is stated in  the   said   application   that   condition   shall   be  incorporated for the incumbent to clear the NET/SLET  Page 45 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT examination within 1 year.   To the aforesaid letter,  reply   at   page   No.140   dated   09.03.2002   was   received  from   the   UGC,   stating   that   exemption   from   NET  examination could not be given on ad­hoc basis for one  year.  It appears that before the selection committee,  out of 9 candidates who were called for interview, 6  candidates   remained   present   and   the   selection  committee comprised of the then Vice Chancellor, three  expert   members   and   two   other   members.     In   such  committee, a decision was taken to recommend name of  one Shri Roy Ajay Naranbhai for the post of lecturer  for   one   year   on   ad­hoc   basis   on   his   passing   SLET  examination.     Shri   Chintankumar   Dahyabhai   Gohil   was  recommended at Sr.No.2 by the selection committee.  In  the   appointment   letter   dated  22.03.2002   at   page  No.145,   it   is   stated   that  candidate   recommended   at  Sr.No.1   by   the   selection   committee   did   not   come  forward and therefore, the candidate at Sr.No.2 Shri  Chintan   Dahyabhai   Gohil   was   given   appointment   as  lecturer in computer application on ad­hoc basis for  one year with a condition amongst other conditions to  pass NET or SLET examination within one year.

40. From   the   recommendation   made   by   the   selection  Page 46 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT committee,   it   appears   that,   the   selection   committee  was fully aware about requirement of passing NET/SLET  examination for the post in question, still it decided  to select the candidates on the ad­hoc basis on the  condition of passing NET/SLET examination within one  year.     For   such   selection   of   Shri   Chintan   by   the  selection   committee,   the   respondent   is   held  responsible by the inquiry officer.  

41. From what is discussed above, it appears that as  per   such   recommendation   of   selection   committee   and  with   the   approval   of   the   then   Vice   Chancellor,   the  appointment order was issued to Shri Chintanbhai.  The  Tribunal   therefore   cannot   be   said   to   have   committed  any error in holding that the charge No.3 cannot be  said to have been proved against the respondent. 

42. The   Charge   No.4   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that the respondent extended benefit of  pay fixation of Rs.14,940 per month as per the UGC pay  scale   for   Shri   Uttam   Chandani   and   Shri   Pravinbhai  Dabhi who were from non teaching staff by considering  them   in   teaching   staff   and   thereby   he   committed  misconduct   and   caused   financial   loss   to   the  Page 47 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT university.  

43. The inquiry officer has found from page No.161 of  the inquiry record that the respondent put up a note  for fixing the pay of those two persons by considering  them in teaching staff, and thus misguided the higher  officers.     He   thereby   did   not   perform   his   duty  honestly   and   committed   misconduct.   The   Tribunal   has  found   that   the   appellant   had   put   up   note,   seeking  guidance   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   and   the   Vice  Chancellor   endorsed   to   treat   the   services   of   said  persons at par with teaching staff and to extend them  benefit available as per rules.  

44. From   page   No.161   of   inquiry   record,   it   appears  that a note was put up by the respondent, stating that  three posts were sanctioned by UGC in 7th plan, out of  which,   Shri   Shankar   Pohumal   Uttamchandani   and   Shri  Pravinbhai   Vali   were   appointed   as   coordinators   of  establishment   and   they   had   completed   more   than   5  years.  The lecturer (selection grade) is required to  be given scale of Rs.4940/­ on completion of 5 years.  If the services of Shri Uttam Chandani and Pravinbhai  are   to   be   considered  as  services  of  teaching  staff,  Page 48 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT necessary guidance is required.  Below this note, the  Vice Chancellor is found to have endorsed to treat the  services  of  above  two   persons  as  of  teaching  staff.  It appears at page No.163 that the respondent put up  note dated 03.05.2002 before the next Vice Chancellor  pointing out that the above said two persons were not  appointed as reader and their pay of Rs.14,900/­ was  sanctioned   by   the   earlier   Vice   Chancellor   and   in  future,   if   the   UGC   objects,   the   recovery   will   be  required   to   be   made   from   those   two   persons.     The  respondent   suggested   two   options   of   either   taking  indemnity bond in order to recover the excess amount  from the pension or to calculate the  pension by re­ fixing the pay and to pay such pension.          

45. Thus, it appears that as per the permission given  by the Vice Chancellor, the pay scale of Rs.14,900/­  was sanctioned to above said two persons, but then it  was the respondent who pointed out to take indemnity  bond or to refix their pay scale for the purpose of  pension.     In   such   circumstances,   the   Tribunal   found  that   the   respondent   could   not   be   said   to   have  committed any misconduct.  The Tribunal was within its  jurisdiction to take such view of the matter.   Page 49 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT

46. The   Charge   No.5   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that the respondent gave appointment to  Shri   Laxmanbhai   Avaiya   as   Director   in   regular   pay  scale instead of fixed pay, which was contrary to the  Central   Government   Guidelines   contained   in   letter  dated   11.11.1996   as   well   as   contrary   to   the  advertisement.     The   respondent   thus,   committed  misconduct   by   acting   contrary   to   the   guidelines   of  Central Government and thereby caused financial loss  to the institution and financial gain to Laxmanbhai.  The respondent also misguided the  Vice Chancellor  by  not   drawing  his   attention   for  the   above   said  action  taken by him.  

47. The   inquiry   officer   found   that   selection  committee   recommended   appointment   of   Laxmanbhai  Devsibhai Avaiya on fixed pay of Rs.15000/­ per month,  still   the   respondent   by   his   letter   dated   09.10.2001  appointed   Shri   Laxmanbhai   in   the   pay   scale   of  Rs.12000­18300 and thereby, the respondent has shown  favour   to   Laxmanbhai   and   failed   to   discharge   his  duties properly.  

48. The   Tribunal   on   examining   the   selection   sheet  Page 50 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT signed by the selection committee at page No.186 found  that it was a decision of the selection committee to  continue   the   remuneration   which   was   being   drawn   by  Shri Laxmanbhai.  

49. From   the   inquiry   record,   it   appears   at   page  No.181 that the advertisement was issued for the post  of Director for giving appointment for first two years  in the remuneration of Rs.15000/­ per month. However,  it appears at page No.183 that Shri Laxmanbhai Avaiya,  a project officer was working as acting Director since  15.05.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.12000­420­18300. The  Selection   committee   recommended   his   appointment   for  the post of Director with endorsement to continue his  current   pay   scale.   It   is   stated   in   his   appointment  letter at page No.187 that as per the recommendation  of the selection committee and with the consent of the  Vice   Chancellor,   he   was   being   appointed   in   the   pay  scale   of   Rs.12000­420­18300   and   his   basic   pay   was  fixed at Rs.13260/­ and with increment of Rs.420, it  was fixed at Rs.13,680/­.   For such fixation of pay,  it cannot be said that the respondent was responsible  for   giving   the   benefit   of   current   pay   scale   being  drawn   by   Shri   Laxmanbhai   when   he   was   offered  Page 51 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT appointment as Director.  

50. The   Charge   No.6   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that as per the UGC guidelines passing  NET/SLET   is   mandatory   for   the   candidates   for  appointments.  The guidance from the UGC was asked for  and though the response of the UGC in its last letter  of year 2000 was against making appointments without  NET/SLET   clearance,   still   Ruchitaben   Shah   and  Kamleshbhai   Salunke   were   appointed,   though   they   did  not   hold   qualification   of   NET/SLET.     Thus,   by   not  acting as per the Rules and Guidelines, the respondent  committed misconduct and caused financial loss to the  university.  

51. The   inquiry   officer   found   that   out   of   8  candidates,   Shah   Ruchitaben   and   Kamleshbhai   Salunke  were   selected   by   selection   committee,   but   the  attention of the selection committee was not drawn by  the respondent as regards not holding qualification of  passing   NET   by   the   said   two   persons.     The   inquiry  officer   has   further   recorded   that   the   advertisement  was given on 30.05.2000 and the Registrar was expected  to know the technical things and guidelines, which the  Page 52 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Vice Chancellor  and selection committee might not be  knowing.  Thus, the respondent conducted the procedure  for giving appointments contrary to UGC guidelines of  passing NET and thus was negligent in his duty.  

52. The   Tribunal   recorded   that   when   the   selection  committee   met   Registrar   Mr.Shailesh   Patel,   Assistant  Registrar  Mr.Jayendra Mehta were also present, still  only   the   respondent   is   charged   for   not   drawing  attention   of   the   selection   committee   about   the   UGC  guidelines for passing NET.   The Tribunal found that  it was a decision of the selection committee and it  cannot   be   believed   that  Vice   Chancellor  and   the  members   of   the   selection   committee   were   not   aware  about  the   requirement   of   passing  NET.    The   Tribunal  thus,   concluded   that   the   charge   leveled   against   the  respondent was thoroughly misconceived.  

53. From the record of the inquiry what appears from  page No.195 is that advertisement dated 30.05.2000 was  given   for   different   posts   including   the   post   of  lecturer by Registrar Shri Shailesh Patel.  From page  No.197, it appears that 7 candidates were called for  interview and 6 persons including Ruchitaben Shah and  Page 53 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Kamleshbhai   Salunke   remained   present   before   the  selection committee comprised of  Vice Chancellor Shri  Govindbhai Raval, three experts and two other members.  The   proceeding   of   selection   committee   reveals   that  Registrar Shri Shailesh Patel and Assistant Registrar  Shri   Jayendra   Patel   also   remained   present   with   the  respondent.       

54. The   selection   committee   recommended   Kamleshbhai  Salunke and Shah Ruchita Deepakbhai at Sr.No.1 and 2  and   one   Mr.Gajaria   Jitendra   R.   as   3rd  candidate   for  appointment of lecturer, stating that if the persons  recommended at Sr.Nos.1 and 2 do not join, the person  recommended at Sr.No.3 be called or he may be called  in   future   on   arising   of   vacancy.     Based   on   such  recommendation   of   the   selection   committee,   Shri  Shailesh   Patel,   the   Registrar,   issued   appointment  letters dated 20.09.2000 to Shri Ruchita Deepak Shah  and   Kamleshbhai   Salunke,   mentioning   therein   that   as  per the recommendation of the selection committee and  with   the   consent   of   the  Vice   Chancellor,   they   were  appointed   as   lecturer   in   computer   application   for   a  period of 1 year on probation.  In spite of such facts  emerging from the selection proceedings for selection  Page 54 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT of   Ruchitaben   Shah   and   Kamleshbhai   Salunke,   the  inquiry   officer   has   held   the   respondent   responsible  for not drawing attention of the selection committee  as   regards   UGC   guidelines   for   passing   NET.     When  Registrar Shaileshbhai Patel has issued advertisement  for   the   post   in   question   and   also   remained   present  with   Assistant   Registrar   Shri   Jayendrabhai   Mehta   at  the time of interviews of the candidates and when the  appointment orders were also issued by Registrar Shri  Shaileshbhai, the respondent is the only person held  responsible   for   the   appointments   of   above   said   two  persons. The Tribunal has therefore committed no error  in holding that the respondent cannot be said to have  committed any misconduct in the matter of appointments  of Ruchita Shah and Kamleshbhai Salunke.  

55. The   Charge   No.8   held   proved   against   the  respondent   is   that   the   respondent   was   serving   as  Assistant  Registrar   (establishment/administration)  in  the year 1993.  Shri Pradipbhai Aacharya (the witness  of respondent) was serving on non­teaching post since  1985.   In the year 1993, an advertisement was given  for the post of reader.   For the post of reader, as  per the UGC guidelines, the qualification prescribed  Page 55 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT was   of   postgraduate   degree  with   55%  marks  and   Ph.D.  degree. Shri Pradipbhai possessed postgraduate degree  with   54.55%   and   was   not   possessing   Ph.D.  qualification.  He was also not having experience of 5  years   as   a   lecturer.     The   respondent   could   have  prevented   consideration   of   application   of   Pradipbhai  at his level.  The respondent committed breach of his  duty by not drawing attention of the Registrar and the  Vice   Chancellor  about   the   non­eligibility   of  Pradipbhai   for   the   post   of   reader   and   put   the  university   to   financial   loss   and   the   respondent   has  thus, committed serious misconduct.

  

56. The   inquiry   officer   found   that   as   per   the   UGC  notification   of   19.09.1991,   Shri   Pradipbhai   did   not  have requisite qualification of Ph.D. degree and was  still   appointed   as   reader.     If   the   respondent   had  properly   checked   the   details   of   Shri   Pradipbhai   as  regards his qualification, Shri Pradipbhai could not  have been appointed as reader.   Since Pradipbhai was  appointed   as   reader,   though   he   was   not   having  qualification, the charge is held proved against the  respondent.     The   Tribunal   has   observed   that   the  appointment  was   made  in  the   year  1993,  whereas,  the  Page 56 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT witness Mr.Rana examined by the University joined duty  of the University in the year 1997 and therefore, it  cannot be said that he was having personal knowledge  as   regards   duty   of   the   respondent   to   examine   the  qualifications of Pradipbhai and to draw the attention  of the selection committee.  The petitioner university  has not examined the then Registrar or Vice Chancellor  as witness to prove the charge against the respondent.  The   UGC   has   not   objected   the   appointment   of   Shri  Pradipbhai.   The selection was made by the selection  committee   where,   respondent   did   not   play   any   role.  The   Tribunal   thus,   held  that   the  charge   against  the  respondent   for   appointment   of   Shri   Pradipbhai   as  reader cannot be said to have been proved.         On   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   inquiry,   it   is  found   that   an   advertisement   dated   09.08.1992   was  issued   by   the   then   Registrar   of   the   University   for  different   posts   including   the  post   of   reader.     From  the selection proceedings at page No.255, it appears  that before the selection committee comprised of Shri  Ramlal   Parikh,   the   then  Vice   Chancellor  and   two  experts, two candidates including Pradipbhai Aacharya  remained   present   on   30.09.1993.     The   then   Registrar  Page 57 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Shri   Vinodbhai   Tripathi   and   the   respondent,   who   was  then   Assistant   Registrar,   remained   present.     The  Selection   Committee   recommended   name   of   Shri  Pradipbhai   for   the   post   of   reader.     Based   on   such  recommendation, appointment order dated 23.10.1993 at  Page   No.257   was   issued   for   a   period   of   1   year   on  probation   to   Shri   Pradipbhai   by   the   then   Registrar  Shri Vinodbhai Tripathi.  Still for such appointment,  only   the   respondent   is   held   responsible.     It   is  required   to   be   noted   that   the   selection   and  appointment of Shri Pradipbhai was made as back as in  the year 1993 and almost after a period of 12 years,  the   respondent  is  sought   to   be   made  responsible  for  the   appointment   of   Shri   Pradipbhai,   though   for   such  long period without any objection the University has  continued Shri Pradipbhai on the post of reader.  The  Tribunal therefore has committed no error in holding  that   the   charge   No.8   cannot   be   said   to   have   proved  against the respondent.  

57. The   Charge   No.9   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that though there was no post of reader  in library department in the UGC plan of 1993, Shri  Navalsinh   was   appointed   as   reader   in   library  Page 58 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT department on 01.01.1994.  For the post of reader, the  qualification   of   Ph.D.   was   must   and   teaching  experience of 5 years as lecturer was also must. Shri  Navalsinh was not holding Ph.D. qualification, nor was  he a lecturer.   However, such facts were not brought  to the notice of the higher officers, which resulted  into appointment of unqualified person and thus, the  respondent has committed misconduct.  This charge also  includes the appointment of Shri Navalsinh Kesarsinh  as librarian.   The inquiry officer has recorded that  the appointments of Shri Navalsinh Kesarsinh as reader  and librarian both were contrary to the UGC guidelines  and   the   respondent   was   responsible   for   not   drawing  attention   of   the   higher   officers   towards   all   the  requirements of the qualification laid down by the UGC  and thus, was negligent towards his duty.

58. The Tribunal has recorded that the selection of  Shri Navalsinh was by the selection committee and in  presence of the then Registrar and it cannot be said  that there was any favoritism shown by the respondent  for   appointment   of   Shri   Navalsinh.     The   Tribunal  therefore held that the respondent could not have been  made responsible for appointment of Shri Navalsinh.  Page 59 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT

59. From the record of the inquiry, the Court finds  at   page   No.269   that   for   selection   for   the   post   of  reader,   the   selection   committee   consisting   of   Shri  Ramlalbhai Parikh as Vice Chancellor with three expert  members and other two members met.   Before selection  committee,   5   candidates   appeared   for   interview  including   Shri    Navalsinh.   The   then   Registrar   Shri  Vinodbhai Tripathi and the respondent remained present  at   the   time   of   interview.   The   selection   committee  recommended name of Shri Navalsinh at Sr.No.1 for the  post of reader and also recommended Dave Kashmiraben  for the post of Assistant Librarian.  Based upon such  recommendation   of   the   selection   committee,   the  Registrar   Shri   Vinodbhai   issued   appointment   order  dated 01.01.1994 at page No.271 to Shri Navalsinh for  1 year on probation. 

        It   appears   that   in  the   year   1999   there   was   an  advertisement for the post of librarian and said Shri  Navalsinh   applied   for   the   said   post   on   10.10.1999.  From   page   No.297,   it   appears   that   out   of   three  candidates,   two   candidates   including   Shri   Navalsinh  remained   present   before   the   selection   committee  comprised of Shri Govindbhai Raval as Vice Chancellor  Page 60 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT with   three   experts   and   two   other   committee   members.  Shri   Shaileshbhai   Patel   as   Registrar,   Shri  Jayendrabhai   Mehta   as   Assistant   Registrar   and   the  respondent remained present at the time of interview.  The   selection   committee   recommended   name   of   Shri  Navalsinh for the post of librarian, based on which,  Shri Shaileshbhai Patel issued appointment order dated  30.09.2000 at page No.293 to Shri Navalsinh, stating  that   as   per   the   recommendation   of   the   selection  committee and the consent of the Vice Chancellor, Shri  Navalsinh was appointed for 1 year on probation on the  post of librarian.   From such record of the inquiry,  it   appears   that   at   the   time   of   selection   of   Shri  Navalsin in the year 1994 for the post of reader and  then   at   the   time   of   his   selection   for   the   post   of  librarian in the year 1999, the respondent was not the  Registrar,   but   at   both   the   times,   two   different  Registrars   remained   present   and   the   respondent   also  remained present and as per the selection committee's  recommendation, the then Registrars issued appointment  orders.     However,   the   respondent   is   charged   with  allegation   of   not   bringing   to   the   notice   of   the  selection   committee   the   UGC   guidelines.     It   is  Page 61 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT required to be noted that the above said selection of  Shri Navalsinh for the post of reader and for the post  of   librarian   had   taken   place   in   the   years   1994   and  1999   respectively.     Still  after   more   than   about   11  years in respect of the first appointment, then after  period   of   about   6   years   in   respect   of   the   second  appointment,   the   respondent   is   held   responsible   for  irregular appointment of Shri Navalsinh.  The Tribunal  has rightly found that the respondent cannot be held  responsible for the appointments of Shri Navalsinh.  

60. The   Charge   No.10   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that though there was a ban by UGC from  filling   post   of   system   in­charge   in   computer   center  after   1999,   advertisement   was   given   for   filling   two  posts   and   appointments   were   made   on   condition   that  after approval of the UGC, the UGC pay scale shall be  implemented.  Thereafter the respondent asked for the  permission   of   the   UGC,   but   since,   no   reply   was  received, the respondent placed notes dated 12.04.2001  and 13.03.2001 for grant of pay scale as per the UGC  for the post of Librarian and System In­charge before  the  Vice   Chancellor  and   got   it   approved   by   the  establishment committee and gave the benefits to the  Page 62 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT aforesaid two persons.  The respondent thus committed  breach of UGC guidelines and committed misconduct by  showing   negligence   towards   his   duty   and  favored   the  employees.  The inquiry officer has recorded from the  documents that though no reply was received from the  UGC   for   making   appointments   in   computer   center,   the  respondent   put  up  the   note  for   such  appointment  and  got the appointments made.   The inquiry officer also  recorded   that   since   there   was   ban   from   filling   of  posts, there was no question of asking for any opinion  by   the   respondent   by   putting   note   before   the  Vice  Chancellor.  The respondent was expected to act after  the   approval   from   the   UGC,   but   by   not   doing   so,   he  committed misconduct.  

61. The Tribunal found that the charge was similar to  the   earlier   charge   for   the   appointment   of   Shri  Navalsinh and therefore, adopted the reasoning given  for the charge in respect of the appointment of Shri  Navalsinh.  

62. From the record of the inquiry, it appears from  page   No.309   that   the   advertisement   for   System   In­ charge dated 30.05.2000 was given in the newspaper by  Page 63 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT the then Registrar Shri Shaileshbhai Patel.  From page  No.317, it appears that when the selection committee  comprising of Shri Govindbhai Raval as Vice Chancellor  with   three   experts   and   two   other   members   met,   Shri  Shaileshbhai Patel as Registrar with Shri Jayendrabhai  Mehta   as   Assistant   Registrar   and   the   respondent  remained   present.   Out   of   three   candidates,   two  candidates   including   Shri   Dhirenbhai   Patel   remained  present. The selection committee recommended the name  of Shri Dhirenbhai Patel for the post of system in­ charge.   On   the   recommendation   of   the   selection  committee Shri Shaileshbhai Patel, the then Registrar  issued   appointment   order   dated   30.09.2000   at   page  No.319   to   Patel   Dhirenbhai,   stating  that   as   per  the  recommendation of the selection committee and with the  consent   of   the   Vice   Chancellor,   Shri   Dhirenbhai   was  appointed on probation for one year.   Here also the  respondent   is   the   only   person   held   responsible   for  appointment   of   Shri   Dhirenbhai   as   System   In­charge.  The   Tribunal   has   rightly   concluded   that   it   was   a  decision of the selection committee and not only the  advertisement,   but,   the   appointment   order   was   also  issued by the then Registrar Shri Shaileshbhai Patel  Page 64 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT and   therefore,   the   respondent   cannot   be   made  responsible for the same.  

63. The   Charge   No.13   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that the respondent committed breach of  written instructions of Vice Chancellor in the matter  of giving senior scale to Smt. Sadhnaben Vora and also  committed breach of UGC criteria.  Smt.Sadhnaben left  the   services   in   the   year   1982   after   10   years   of  service   and   thereafter   again   joined   the   service   in  1989.     At   the   time   of   giving   her   senior   scale   on  19.02.1991,   the   above   fact   was   required   to   be  considered.  Previous services of Sadhnaben from 1982  to   1989   were   not   considered   as   continuous   service,  therefore, senior scale could not have been given to  her.   The respondent in breach of the UGC guidelines  got   the   senior   scale   sanctioned   for   Sadhnaben   by  considering her previous services from 1972 to 1982.  The Vice Chancellor though had made specific note to  observe   UGC   guidelines   still   in   breach   of   UGC  guidelines, the respondent made over the benefits to  Sadhnaben and thereby caused loss to the institution  and thus, committed misconduct.   The inquiry officer  has   recorded   that   as   per   page   No.365,   Sadhnaben  Page 65 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT resigned   on   03.11.1982,   still   the   respondent  recommended for giving her senior scale by considering  her   previous   service   from   01.03.1972   to   31.10.1982.  The   respondent   also   did   not   act   as   per   the  instructions   given   by   the   Vice   Chancellor,   and   also  committed   breach   of   the   UGC   guidelines   and   thus  committed irregularity in such matter.   The Tribunal  recorded   that   the   then   Vice   Chancellor   Mr.Ramlal  Parikh   directed   to   prepare   the   note   after   examining  the   UGC   guidelines   and   it   was   the   Registrar  Mr.Vinodbhai   Tripathi   put   endorsement   and   Vice  Chancellor   Shri   Ramlal   Parikh   endorsed   "agreed"   and  put   his   signature.     The   respondent   then   put   his  signature   for   calculation   and   there   was   no   evidence  that the respondent was responsible for showing favour  to   Sadhnaben.     The   Tribunal   thus   held   that   the  respondent   could   not   be   said   to   be   responsible   for  extending selection grade to Sadhnaben.

64. From   the   record   of   the   inquiry,   it   appears   at  page   No.369   that   Sadhnaben   was   issued   appointment  order dated 09.01.1990 as lecturer.   It appears that  she had joined service as per the instruction of Vice  Chancellor on 30.12.1989 which was recognized as per  Page 66 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT the appointment letter.  It further appears from page  No.375   that   a   note   was   put   up   by   one   Bhailalbhai  Thakkar before the Vice Chancellor for extending the  selection   grade   to   Sadhnaben   by   considering   her  service from 1972 to 1982.  This note appears to have  been   put   up   through   Registrar   and   on   the   left   hand  side,   somebody's   illegible   signature   is   appearing,  which is stated to be the signature of the respondent.  It   further   appears   from   the   communication   dated  18.06.1990   at   page   No.337   addressed   by   Additional  Secretary   Shri   A.G.Deshmukh   of   UGC   to   the   Registrar  Shri V.R.Tripathi stating that for protection to the  senior scale of the lecturer, it was not required to  have   continuous   service   in   the   same   institution   and  the lecturer will be promoted in the senior scale if  he   has   completed   8   years   of   service   on   regular  appointment.  It further appears from page No.379 that  the   Vice   Chancellor   put   up   note   to   the   effect   that  Smt.Sadhnaben   is   to   be   placed   in   senior   scale   by  joining   her   previous   services   and   in   that   regard,  after   examining   the   UGC   guidelines,   note   should   be  prepared. It also mentions about payment of all past  dues to her by 1st  March and release of her increment  Page 67 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT on completion of 1 year of service.   Thus, it is not  that   it   was  the   petitioner  who   alone   initiated   move  for extending selection scale benefit to Smt.Sadhnaben  and   got   her   such   benefit,   but,   the   then   Registrar  consciously sought direction from the UGC and then the  Vice   Chancellor   endorsed   his   agreement   for   such  benefit and directed to prepare note for such benefit  after   examining   the   UGC   guidelines.     If   on   such  direction   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   Smt.Sadhnaben   was  given the benefit of selection scale and when the then  Registrar was also actively involved in the matter of  granting   such   benefits   to   Smt.Sadhnaben,   no   error  could   be   found   with   the   view   taken   by   the   Tribunal  holding   that   the   respondent   could   not   be   made  responsible for such benefit extended to Ms.Sadhnaben.

65. The   charge   No.16   held   proved   against   the  respondent is that Shri Parshottambhai G. Patel took  voluntary   retirement   in   1991   from   other   institution  and   his   appointment   was   made   in   fixed   salary   of  Rs.3000/­ by letter dated 16.09.1991 with effect from  01.09.1991 till he completed 60 years of service with  the University.   However, though there was no demand  from Shri Patel on completion of one and half years of  Page 68 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT his   service,   considering   his   earlier   pension,   his  appointment was got made in the regular pay scale and  thus,   the   respondent   while   acting   as   Assistant  Registrar   (Administration)   caused   financial   loss   to  the institution.   The agreement made with Shri Patel  was   to   pay   Rs.3000/­   as   fixed   amount.     But,   the  respondent favoured Mr.Patel and caused financial loss  to the institution and thereby committed misconduct.  The inquiry officer found that though Mr.Patel was to  be   paid   Rs.3,000/­   per   month   as   fixed   emolument,  however, he was recommended for appointment in the pay  scale   of   Rs.4500­7300/­   for   basic   pay   of   Rs.5400/­.  The   inquiry   officer   recorded   that   as   per   the  handwriting note of the respondent at page No.413, the  pay scale of Mr.Patel was fixed and he was also paid  arrears   of   salary  for   the   period  from   01.08.1991   to  31.03.1993 after deducting Rs.3,000/­ per month paid  to him.   The respondent thus committed breach of the  UGC   guidelines   by   getting   appointed   Mr.Patel   in   the  aforesaid   pay   scale,   though   he   was   appointed   on  honorary basis.

66. The Tribunal found from the documents on record  that the appointment of Mr.Patel in regular scale was  Page 69 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT within the knowledge and permission of Vice Chancellor  and that the note put up by the respondent was as per  the   say   of   the   then   Vice   Chancellor   Shri   Ramlal  Parikh.  The Tribunal also found that it was the Vice  Chancellor who amended the draft for the appointment  which was then issued by the Registrar in tune of the  amended   draft.     The   Tribunal   thus,   found   that   for  giving appointment in regular pay scale to Mr.Patel,  the respondent could not be made responsible.  

67. From the record of the inquiry at page No.411, it  appears   that   Registrar   Shri   Vinodbhai   Tripathi  informed   Shri   Purshottambhai   Patel   by   letter   dated  16.09.1991   that   as   per   the   decision   of   the   Vice  Chancellor, he was appointed as full time professor.  In this letter, it was further informed that as per  the   norms   of   Executive   Council   of   the   University,  Mr.Patel   was   to   be   given   Rs.3000/­   per   month   as  honorarium.  From page No.413, it appears that a note  was   put   up   by   the   respondent   before   the   Vice  Chancellor   on   28.12.1992   for   calculation   of   pay  fixation   of   Mr.Patel,   wherein,   it   is   stated   that  Mr.Patel could be appointed on basic pay of Rs.5400/­ in the pay scale of Rs.4500­7300/­ and calculation for  Page 70 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT difference of payment was also pointed out.  From page  No.415,   further   note   appears   to   have   been   put   up  before the Vice Chancellor, pointing out that as per  the   Central   Civil   Services   (Fixation   of   Pay   of  Reemployed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, the pay which the  pensioner   was   receiving  would  apply.     The  said   note  also contains the remarks about the nonavailability of  gratuity   and   availability   of   provident   fund   to   such  employee.         

68. From page No.417, it appears that a note was put  up   before   Vice   Chancellor   pointing   out   that   on   pay  fixation of Purshottambhai, his basic pay would come  to Rs.3160/­.  On his retirement, he will be required  to   be   paid   Rs.5400/­   plus   dearness   and   other  allowances.   Below this note, signature of Registrar  Shri Vinodbhai Tripathi and signature of respondent is  found and on the left hand side, the word 'accepted'  or   'approved'   appears   to   be   written.   Then   on   page  No.419,   it   appears   that   Shri   Purshottambhai   was  informed about giving consent by the Vice Chancellor  for fixation of his pay at Rs.3160/­ plus dearness and  other allowances and it is stated that on reaching age  of   60   years   on   06.04.1998,   the   appointment   of   Shri  Page 71 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Purshottambhai   shall   come   to   an   end   automatically.  Page   No.421   is   the   copy   of   order   dated   21.03.1993  issued   by   the   Registrar   Shri   Vinodbhai   Tripathi   for  above   said   fixation   of   pay   to   Shri   Purshottambhai  Patel.   Then   found   the   calculation   of   difference   of  salary and provident fund at page No.423.  From above  documents, though it appears that the  respondent had  put up note for extending benefit   of   regular   pay  scale     to   Shri     Purshottambhai,     however,   the   same  appears   to   be   as   per   the   decision   of   the   Vice  Chancellor and the Registrar.  Therefore, it cannot be  said   that   the   respondent   himself   had   taken   any  decision   and   shown   any   favour   individually   to   Shri  Purshottambhai   Patel.     In   any   case,   such   being   the  decision   taken   in   the   year   1993,   after   a   period   of  about  12  years,   the   respondent   alone   could   not   have  been   charged   for   such   irregularity   at   much   belated  stage.  The Tribunal is justified in holding that for  such   charge,   the   respondent   could   not   be   held  responsible.  

69. The   charge   No.19   held   proved   against   the  respondent   is   that   without   any   advertisement   and  without showing the name of the post, the application  Page 72 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT form   of   Shri   Natubhai   Vatalia   was   presented   by   the  respondent before the institution.  Such form was not  inwarded.   The respondent gave instruction on simple  piece  of  paper  stating   that   the   Vice   Chancellor  had  said for giving appointment to Shri Natubhai in place  of   Shri   Bharatbhai   Mahida.     The   respondent   did   not  take   permission   from   establishment/administration  department   as   responsible   officer.     The   respondent  also did not draw the attention of the Vice Chancellor  for   following   procedure   of   advertisement,   selection  procedure, etc. for such appointment.   Thus, without  bringing   to   the   notice   of   Vice   Chancellor   and   the  Registrar   about   the   set   norms,   the   respondent  proceeded in the matter of appointment contrary to the  Rules   for   such   appointment   and   thereby   did   not   act  impartially   and   honestly   and   thus,   committed  misconduct.

    

70. The   inquiry   officer   found   that   by   order   dated  31.05.1998, Natvarbhai Gandabhai Vatalia was appointed  as  junior   clerk­cum­typist  in  the   main  office.    For  such   appointment,   no   advertisement   was   given.  Ordinarily,   such   procedure   is   followed   as   per   the  instructions   of   the   Registrar.     The   application   of  Page 73 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Shri Natvarbhai was just presented without any date,  but the respondent with endorsements dated 30.04.1998  and   06.05.1998,   gave   instruction   for   preparing  appointment   letter   in   favour   of   Shri   Natvarbhai   in  place of Shri Bharatbhai Mahida.  The inquiry officer  has   though   observed   that   the   appointment   of   Shri  Natvarbhai   was   made   with   the   signature   of   Registrar  Shri Shaileshbhai Patel, however, such appointment was  without   consulting   the   selection   committee.   The  respondent is thus responsible for such irregularity  and the charge No.19 is held proved.  

71. The   Tribunal   found   that   Registrar   Shri  Shaileshbhai Patel, who signed the appointment letter,  would not have signed blindly and such appointment was  within   the   knowledge   of   the   Vice   Chancellor.     The  Tribunal has also observed that the appointment letter  was issued by the Registrar Shri Shaileshbhai Patel in  the   year   1998,   still   the   respondent   is   charged   for  irregularity in the matter of such appointment in the  year 2005.  The Tribunal has further observed that at  the relevant time, there was no procedure for inviting  application for non­teaching staff.  

Page 74 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT

72. From the record of the inquiry, it appears that  on top of the application, the respondent has written  that   the   Vice   Chancellor   has   instructed   to   prepare  appointment   letter   of   Shri   Natvarbhai   in   the   junior  clerk   grade   in   place   of   Shri   Bharatbhai   Mahida.  However,   from   page   No.435,   it   appears   that   the  appointment   order   was   issued   to   Natvarbhai   with   the  signature   of   Registrar   Shri   Shaileshbai   and   just  adjacent   to   the   signature   of   the   Registrar,   the  respondent   appears   to   have   signed.   There   is   another  copy   at   page   No.437   of   the   appointment   order   dated  12.05.1998,   which   is   exclusively   signed   by   the  Registrar Shri Shaileshbhai Patel.   This appointment  was made in the year 1998. For this appointment, the  respondent is found responsible, though the Registrar  has   issued   appointment   letter   with   the   knowledge   of  Vice Chancellor.  The Tribunal appears to be right in  observing that for such appointment made in the year  1998   by   the   Registrar   Shri   Shaileshbhai   Patel,   the  respondent   could   not   have   been   charged   with  irregularity   in   the   year   2005.     When   the   respondent  had   stated   on   the   application   that   as   per   the  instructions of the Vice Chancellor, appointment order  Page 75 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT of Shri Natvarbhai was to be prepared and since such  appointment   was   within   the   knowledge   of   Vice  Chancellor   and   for   such   appointment,   when   the  Registrar   Shri   Shaileshbhai   Patel   has   issued  appointment   order,   the   respondent   could   be   said   to  have acted as instructed by the Vice Chancellor, and  therefore   the   respondent   could   not   be   said   to   have  indulged   into   irregularity   in   the   matter   of   such  appointment.  

73. From what is discussed above, it appears that the  respondent is not only charged for stale events of the  year 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999 as regards appointments  and giving of monetary benefits to some employees, but  is the only person shown to be responsible for such  appointments   and   for   grant   of   monetary   benefits,  though, from the documents of the inquiry proceedings,  it is found that there was active involvement of the  then   Vice   Chancellors,   the   expert   persons   who   took  part in the selection for various appointments and the  then   Registrars   also.   The   Tribunal   has   observed   and  even the respondent has alleged that the decision was  taken to take action against the respondent for such  charges   only   after   the   respondent   addressed   a  Page 76 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT note/representation   dated   03.07.2004   to   the   Vice  Chancellor   Shri   Arunbhai   Dave   pointing   out   various  financial   and   administrative   irregularities   taking  place in the university.   In this representation, he  categorically stated that he was under confusion that  his   such   representation   might   not   create   negative  effect   and   therefore,   on   11.08.2004,   he   again  addressed a letter to Vice Chancellor Shri Arunbhai,  stating   that   the   development   which   had   taken   place  after   his   representation   dated   03.07.2004   had   shown  that   his   representation   was   not   taken   in   positive  manner.   He stated that in the best interest of the  institution, he had pointed out the irregularities and  not to cause damage to anybody.  It is thereafter, the  respondent received letter dated 18.08.2004 from the  Registrar   Dr.Rajendra   Khemani   stating   that   the  respondent   should   not   have   addressed   such   letters  straightway to Vice Chancellor and that the respondent  has crossed limits of his position and the respondent  was asked to explain why the respondent had to take  such step of writing letters to the Vice Chancellor.  The respondent then, by his letter dated 28.03.2004,  submitted   his   explanation   to   the   Registrar.     The  Page 77 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT Tribunal   appears   to   have   rightly   observed   that   such  letters   addressed   by   the   respondent   to   the   Vice  Chancellor was the reason for taking a decision by the  Vice Chancellor with the help of the members of the  Mandal   to   take  action   against  the   respondent  at  the  time   of   resigning   as   Vice   Chancellor   and   for   such  purpose, a resolution dated 09.05.2005 was passed.  

74. Learned   advocate   Mr.Chauhan,   however,   submitted  that considering the past irregularities held proved  against the respondent in the inquiry, it is also a  case   of   loss   of   confidence   of   the   petitioner  university   in   the   respondent   and   continuance   of   the  respondent in the service of the university shall not  be in the interest of university.  

 

75. As   stated   above,   whatever   the   decisions   taken,  either to select any person for any post or to extend  any monetary benefit to any employee, they were with  the consent of the then Vice Chancellors and in most  of   the   cases,   as   per   the   recommendation   of   the  selection committee in presence of the then Registrars  Shri Vinodbhai Tripathi and Shri Shaileshbhai Patel.  When   the   post   of   Registrar   remained   vacant,   the  Page 78 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT respondent was given additional charge of Registrar as  he   was   serving   as   development   officer.     Till   Shri  Arunbhai Dave resumed office as Vice Chancellor, the  respondent   worked   under   three   different   Vice  Chancellors   viz.   Shri   Ramlalbhai   Parikh,   Shri  Govindbhai   Raval   and   Shri   Jitendrabhai   Desai   and   at  least   under   two   Registrars   viz.   Shri   Vinodbhai  Tripathi   and   Shri   Shaileshbhai   Patel,   in   whose  presence, all decisions were taken.  Thus, it could be  said   that   the   respondent   enjoyed   confidence   from  higher   authorities   while   working   initially   as  Assistant   Registrar,   then   Development   Officer   and  while   holding   additional   charge   of   Registrar.     As  stated above, it was only during the tenure of Vice  Chancellor   Shri   Arunbhai   Dave,   when   the   respondent  represented to inquire into irregularities going on in  the   university   in   financial   and   administrative  matters,   it   was   decided   to   take   action   against   the  respondent.  

76. In   the   case   of   University   of   Mysore   V.   Govinda  Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SCC 491, the Hon'ble Supreme  Court has observed in para No.13 as under:

"13.   Before   we   part   with   these   appeals,  Page 79 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT however, reference must be made to two other   matters.   In   dealing   with   the   case   presented   before it by the respondent, the High Court   has criticized the report made by the Board   and   has   observed   that   the   circumstances  disclosed by the report made it difficult for   the   High   Court   to   treat   the   recommendations   made by the expert with the respect that they   generally deserve. We are unable to see the   point of criticism of the High Court in such   academic matters. Boards of Appointments are   nominated   by   the   Universities   and   when   recommendations   made   by   them   and   the   appointments following on them are challenged   before courts, normally the courts should be   slow to interfere with the opinions expressed   by the experts. There is no allegation about   mala   fides   against   the   experts   who   constituted   the   present   Board;   and   so,   we   think, it would normally be wise and safe for   the courts to leave the decisions of academic   matters to experts who are more familiar with   the   problems   they   face   than   the   courts  generally can be. The criticism made by the   High   Court   against   the   report   made   by   the  Board   seems   to   suggest   that   the   High   Court   thought that the Board was in the position of   an executive authority, issuing an executive   fiat,   or   was   acting   like   a   quasi­judicial   tribunal,   deciding   disputes   referred   to   it   for its decision. In dealing with complaints   Page 80 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT made   by   citizens   is   regard   to   appointments   made   by   academic   bodies,   like   the  Universities,   such   an   approach   would   not   be   reasonable   or   appropriate.   In   fact,   in   issuing   the   writ,   the   High   Court   has   made   certain observations which show that the High   Court applied tests which would legitimately   be   applied   in   the   case   of   writs   of   certiorari.   In   the   judgment,   it   has   been  observed   that   the   error   in   this   case   is   undoubtedly   a   manifest   error.   That   is   a   consideration   which   is   more   germane   and   relevant   in   a   procedure   for   a   writ   of   certiorari.   What   the   High   Court   should   have   considered is whether the appointment made by   the Chancellor had contravened any statutory   or   binding   rule   or   ordinance,   and   in   doing   so,   the   High   Court   should   have   shown   due   regard to the opinion expressed by the Board   and   its   recommendations   on   which   the   Chancellor has acted. In this connection, the   High   Court   has   failed   to   notice   one   significant   fact   that   when   the   Board   considered   the   claims   of   the   respective   applicants,   it   examined   them   very   carefully   and actually came to the conclusion that none   of them deserved to be appointed a Professor.   These   recommendations   made   by   the   Board   clearly   show   that   they   considered   the   relevant   factors   carefully   and   ultimately   came to the conclusion that appellant No. 2  Page 81 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT should be recommended for the post of Reader.   Therefore,   we   are   satisfied   that   the   criticism made by the High Court against the   Board   and   its   deliberations   is   not   justified."

77. As observed in the above judgment, the say of the  selection committee for selection of a candidate for  appointment is to be respected.   In some cases, even  with   the   consent   of   the   Vice   Chancellor,   the  appointments are made.  

78. The petitioner university is a deemed university  under   Section   3   of   the   University   Grant   Commission  Act.     It   was   founded   in   the   year   1920   by   Mahatma  Gandhiji.     It   is   not   established   either   under   the  Central  Act or the  State  Act.   It  did  not have  any  ordinances   or   statutes   to   govern  its   affairs  on  all  aspects   like   the   Gujarat   University   and   other  Universities   established   under   the   State   Act.  Therefore, at the relevant time in the year 1993, 1994  and 1999 when Shri Ramlalbhai Parikh, Shri Govindbhai  Raval   and   Shri   Jitendrabhai   Desai   were   Vice  Chancellors,   if   some  lapses   had   occurred   in    making  appointments and granting monetary benefits with their  Page 82 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT approval, the same could not have been attributed to  the respondent.  

79. During   long   tenure   from   1993   to   2004,   for  whatever   appointments   and   extending   of   the   monetary  benefits to the employees if the selection committee  as   also   the   then   Vice   Chancellors   had   taken   active  part   and   given   their   consent   for   the   same,   the  respondent   could   be   said   to   have   earned   their  confidence.   Thus, it is not possible to accept the  contention   of   learned   advocate   Mr.Chauhan   that   the  university has lost confidence in respondent.  In such  view of the matter, decisions cited on the issue of  loss of confidence need not be considered.  This Court  is   of   the   view   that   this   is   not   a   case   where  interference   of   this   Court   is   called   for   in   the  impugned judgment and order as regards setting aside  dismissal   order   and   of   reinstatement   under   Article  226/227   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   However,   the  direction issued by the Tribunal for payment of full  back­wages   to   the   respondent   needs   to   be   interfered  with.

80. It is stated by learned advocate Mr.Chauhan that  as   per   the   interim   order   passed   by   this   Court,   the  Page 83 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT respondent   has   been   paid   regular   salary   pending   the  petition without taking any work from him, the total  of   which   has   gone   beyond   Rs.50   Lacs.     The   Court   is  informed   by   the   respondent   that   he   has   been  discharging honorary services with other institution.  The   Court   is   also   informed   that   towards   arrears   of  salary   and   back­wages   the   university   has   deposited  around Rs.22 Lacs with this Court.  From such amount,  the   respondent   was   permitted   to   withdraw   amount  towards   arrears   of   salary.     Ld.   Advocate   Mr.Chauhan  states that now Rs.18 Lacs and odd has been lying with  registry of this Court towards backwages.    

81. This   Court   is   of   the   view   that   considering   the  nature of the establishment of the university and the  respondent having been paid regular salary pending the  petition   without   work   and   the   respondent   since   have  been   discharging   honorary   duties   with   other  institution, the interest of justice will be subserved  if the reinstatement of the respondent is ordered with  25% of back­wages.  

82. For   the   reasons   stated   above,   the   petition   is  partly   allowed.     The   impugned   judgment   and   order  Page 84 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT passed   by   the   Tribunal   is   confirmed   and   maintained  insofar   as   quashing   of   order   of   dismissal   passed  against   the   respondent   by   the   petitioner   university  and grant of reinstatement to the respondent. However,  the   order   of   the   Tribunal   for   payment   of   the   back­ wages  beyond   25%   shall   stand   quashed   and   set  aside.  The   respondent   shall   be   entitled   to   25% back­wages   with   reinstatement.   Except   this  modification as regards back­wages, the judgment and  order of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.  

83. The   Registry   shall   pay   25%   of   the   amount   lying  with   it   towards   back   wages   to   the   respondent   and  permit   withdrawal   of   remaining   amount   to   the  petitioner after six weeks.  

84. Since, the respondent is being paid salary to the  extent of Rs.1 Lac per month without taking work from  him,   it   is   directed   that   the   petitioner   university  shall reinstate the respondent within a period of six  weeks from the date of receipt of this order.  

85. Rule   made   absolute   to   the   extent   stated   above. R & P to be sent back.

Page 85 of 86 C/SCA/8112/2009 CAV JUDGMENT

(C.L.SONI, J.) At   this   stage,   learned   advocate   Mr.   Chauhan  requests to stay and suspend this order.   Since, the  petitioner shall have six weeks time for reinstatement  and   payment   of   back   wages   to   the   respondent,   the  request is rejected.  

(C.L.SONI, J.) ANKIT Page 86 of 86