Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Meanwhile, on 21.09.2007, the State Government exercised powers under Section 58(2) of the Act and superseded the Management of the College. The District Magistrate was appointed as an Authorised Controller for an initial period of six months.

7. The petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the same was disposed of on 23.07.2008 by directing that the matter with regard to the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by the Vice Chancellor of the University expeditiously after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to the Committee of Management. A review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.04.2012. The Vice Chancellor passed an order of approval for terminating the services of the petitioner on 08.03.2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner instituted Writ A no. 30418 of 2013.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted the order dated 22.06.2009 through which District Magistrate appointed Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Ghaziabad as Authorised Controller and thereafter vide order dated 28.08.2010 Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Ghaziabad appointed Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar as Authorised Controller and as such the claim of the petitioner that it is the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad who had been appointed as Administrator/Authorised Controller firstly, by the orders of this Court and thereafter by orders of the State Government. Neither under the order of this Court nor order of the State Government, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad stood authorised to sub-delegate his power of management to any other subordinate officer and as such the action of the District Magistrate in abdicatiing powers in favour of Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar was wholly unauthorised and as such all disciplinary orders against the petitioner including the order of suspension, institution of departmental enquiry, issuance of departmental charge-sheet, appointment of Enquiry Officer as also order proposing termination are the orders passed by Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar. On such account the entire proceedings against the petitioner are without authority and liable to be quashed. It is on this reasoning that the Division Bench by the judgment dated 24.03.2018 had quashed the order of Vice Chancellor and allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner with all consequential benefits. In passing the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court referred to order of State Government appointing the District Magistrate as an Authorised Controller. However, it is also submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that on facts Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 16.08.2021 found that the orders pertaining to disciplinary action against the petitioner had been passed prior to the appointment of the Authorised Controller by the State Government and on account of such factual discrepancy remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by this Court.

20. Learned senior counsel also submitted that on facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 16.08.2021 found that the order pertaining to the disciplinary enquiry which concluded much prior to the appointment of the Collector as an Authorised Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act, this factual anaology has been drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the Government order dated 21.09.2007 but the stay order dated 14.07.2003 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court has not been taken into consideration through which the District Magistrate has already been directed under the judicial orders to perform the duty of Manager of the Institution and the same has been continued till 21.09.2007 through which District Magistrate again appointed as an Authorised Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act.

23. Disciplinary proceedings conducted by Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar has been challenged on the ground that neither by any judicial order nor by the State Government appointed Deputy Collector, as Authorised Controller.

24. The contentions of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that under Section 58(2) of the Act, the State Government has appointed Collector, Ghaziabad as Authorised Controller and no power of sub-delegation was conferred upon him, Collector Ghaziabad had not authority to nominate any other person as Authorised Controller of College and any such order passed by Collector nominating Additional District Magistrate or Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. In these circumstances it is also contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings conducted by Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar under the capacity of Authorised Controller through delegated power of District Magistrate being Manager in pursuance to order dated 14.07.2003 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 29641 of 2003 are also wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and Vice Chancellor of University having failed to consider this aspect of the matter has erred in law and impugned order dated 08.03.2013 is patently illegal.