Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

 Subir Sen S/o Shri R.B. Sen, Aged About 60 Years R/o 17/361, Sarju Bagicha, Azad Nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary To The Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Higher Education Mantrtalaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Ps Rakhi, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Governing Body (Constituted Under Statute 28 Of College Code Of C.G.,vishwavidyalay Adhinium 1973 Of D.P. Vipra College) Through The Secretary To The Governing Body Office Of Principal, D.P.Vipra College Old Higher Court Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

To substantiate the submission he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 (2) SCC 528 {Krishna District Cooperative Bank vs. K. Hanumanta Rao} and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. The respondents No. 2 and 4 have filed reply mainly contending that the petitioners were involved in the criminal case for committing an offence under Section 354(A), 354(B), 354 (C), 354(D), 509(A) and 509(B) of the IPC. The respondents have also taken specific stand that petitioners have alternate remedy as per the Rule 32 of the College Code Statute-28 as such the writ petitions are not maintainable. It has been further contended that petitioner-Dr. Durga Sharan Chandra becomes member of the Public Service Commission, as such in view of the Article 319 of the Constitution of India he is prohibited to hold any office on ceasing of the such membership from Public Service Commission. It is also submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of offence which is serious in nature, therefore, punishment imposed upon them is proportionate to the misconduct and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. The respondents have also annexed the copy of the Criminal Revision, documents relating to the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioners.

16. Since the points No. i and ii are interconnected they are being determined analogously.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are confirmed Assistant Professors appointed by respondents No. 2 and 3, and their service condition is governed by Statute-28 of College Code which has binding force. The College Code Statute 28 provides the procedure and manner of imposing punishment on the teaching staff of the private colleges. The Rule 31(3) of Statute 28 provides the procedure for imposing of penalty specified in subparagraph 1 of Rule 31(1). The Rule 31 provides as under:-

"........It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the "'College Code" has been made by the University in exercise of statutory power conferred by s. 32 and under s. 6(6) of the Act. It is also conceded on behalf of the respondents that the "College Code" is intra vires of the powers of the University contained in s. 32 read with s. 6(6) of the Act. In our opinion, the provisions of Ordinance 20, otherwise called the "College Code' have the force of law. It confers legal rights on the teachers of the affiliated colleges and it is not a correct proposition to say that the "College Code" merely regulates the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges and the University alone. We do not agree with the High Court that the provisions of the "College Code" constitute power of management. On the contrary we are of the view that the provisions of the "College Code" relating to the pay scale of teachers and their security of tenure properly fall within the statutory power of affiliation granted to the University under the Act. It is true that Clause 7 of the Ordinance provides that all teachers of affiliated colleges shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in Sch. A but that does not mean that teachers have merely a contractual remedy against the Governing Body of the College. On the other hand, we are of opinion that the provisions of Clause 8 of the Ordinance relating to security of the tenure of teachers are part and parcel of the teachers service conditions and, as we have already pointed out, the provisions of the "College Code" in this regard are validly made by the University in exercise of the statutory power and have, therefore, the force and effect of law. It follows, therefore, that the "College Code"