Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Officating Principal Can Be Divested Of His Duty To Restore Normalcy In College.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Dr. Kiran Shanker Vs. Union Of India And Others. On 03/05/2006 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : WRIT - A NO. 19341 OF 2006
CORAM : Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J. And Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19341 Of 2006
Dr. Kiran Shanker V. Union Of India And Others


Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J.

(Delivered By R.K.Agrawal, J.)

By Means Of The Present Writ Petition Filed Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India, Dr. Kiran Shanker Seeks The Following Reliefs:-
"(i) To Issue A Writ, Order Or Direction In The Nature Of Certiorari Calling For The Record Of The Case And Quashing The Order Impugned Dated 31.3.2006 Passed By The Respondent - Committee Of Management Of The College And The Resolution Of The Committee Of Management Dated 31.3.2006 (Annexures - 2 And 3 To The Writ Petition) Respectively, Wrongly And Illegally Relieving The Petitioner From The Post Of Officiating Principal Of The College.
(ii) To Issue A Writ, Order Or Direction In The Nature Of Mandamus Commanding The Respondents Authorities Not To Interfere In The Peaceful Functioning Of The Petitioner As Officiating Principal Of The College.
(iii) To Issue Any Other Writ, Order Or Direction Which This Hon'ble Court May Deem Fit, Just And Proper In The Circumstances Of The Case To Meet The Ends Of Justice.
(iv) To Award Costs Of This Writ Petition To The Petitioner."

Briefly Stated, The Facts Giving Rise To The Present Petition Are As Follows:-
According To The Petitioner, He Was Appointed On The Post Of Lecturer In Physics On 20.8.1968 In C.M.P.Degree College, Allahabad, (hereinafter Referred To As "the College") Which Was At That Time An Associated College Of The University Of Allahabad (hereinafter Referred To As "the University"). His Appointment Was As A Result Of Selection Made By A Duly Constituted Selection Committee Under The Provisions Of The Statutes Governing The University. He Was Confirmed On The Post Of The Lecturer On 20.8.1970. He Was Promoted To The Post Of The Reader Grade On 1.1.1983 And Was Granted The Designation Of Reader On 1.1.1986. Since Then He Has Been Discharging His Duties To The Utmost Satisfaction Of His Superiors. The Post Of The Principal In The College Fell Vacant And As The Regular Selection Was Not Held, The Committee Of Management Of The College Decided To Make Officiating Arrangement So That The Financial And Administrative Work Of The College Could Be Conducted Smoothly. The Petitioner Being The Seniormost Reader/teacher In The College, Was Appointed As Officiating Principal Of The College Vide Resolution Of The Committee Of Management Dated 28.6.2002 For A Period Of Three Months. He Took Charge As Officiating Principal Of The College On 1.7.2002 And His Appointment Has Been Extended Vide Resolution Passed By The Committee Of Management On 27.9.2002 Till The Date Of His Superannuation Or Till The Incumbent Recommended By The U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Is Accepted For Appointment By The College. It May Be Mentioned Here That From 14.7.2005 With The Enactment Of The University Of Allahabad Act, 2005 (hereinafter Referred To As "the Act") By The Parliament, The College Has Become A Constituent College Of The University. According To The Petitioner, He Has Been Discharging The Duties And The Work Of The Officiating Principal To The Utmost Satisfaction Of All Concerned. However, To The Utter Dismay And Shock, He Received A Communication Vide Letter Dated 31.3.2006 From The Committee Of Management That He Has Been Relieved From The Post Of The Principal Of The College And One Sri V.K.Sinha, Respondent No.6, Has Been Appointed As Officiating Principal For A Period Of Three Months. The Communication Dated 31.3.2006 Relieving The Petitioner From The Post Of Officiating Principal Is Under Challenge In The Present Petition
According To The Petitioner, After The College Had Become A Constituent College Of The University With Effect From 14.7.2005, The Right To Appoint The Principal Which Includes The Officiating Principal Also, Vests In The University And The Committee Of Management Has No Power To Make Any Appointment On The Post Of The Principal In The College. As The Regular Selection For The Post Of The Principal In The College Had Not Been Made So Far, The Petitioner Who Continued To Officiate As Principal Beyond 30.9.2002 Upto The End Of March, 2006, Is Entitled To Continue And Cannot Be Removed From The Said Post As He Has Been Discharging His Duties To The Utmost Sincerity And Has Operated The Financial Accounts Very Smoothly And Has Also Maintained Strict Disciplinary Control In The College. According To The Petitioner, His Removal Has Been Made Without Serving Any Show Cause Notice Or Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing To Defend Himself And The Removal Is Wholly Arbitrary And Unceremonious. According To The Petitioner, As Per The Rules Of The College Made Under The Statutes Which Govern The University And Its Associated Colleges Before The Enactment Of The Act, The Seniormost Teacher Of The College Has To Be Appointed As The Officiating Principal And He Being The Seniormost Teacher In The College, Is Entitled To Hold And Discharge The Functions And Duties Of The Officiating Principal. Reference In This Regard Has Been Made To Statue 13.20 Of The First Statutes Of The University Framed Under Section 38(4) And 49(m) Of The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Petitioner Also Alleges Non-compliance Of Statute 17.06 Of The First Statutes Which Requires That Any Decision Regarding Removal Or Disciplinary Action Against A Teacher Of A College Has To Be Reported To The Vice Chancellor And Shall Be Operative Only To The Extent Approved By The Vice Chancellor Which, According To The Petitioner, Has Not Been Done In The Present Case. It Has Further Been Claimed By The Petitioner That The Ad Hoc Arrangement Already In Vogue Cannot Be Replaced By Another Ad Hoc Arrangement As Has Been Done In The Present Case By Replacing The Petitioner Who Was Working As Officiating Principal Of The College By Another Officiating Principal, I.e., Respondent No.6.
In The Counter Affidavit Filed On Behalf Of The President Of The Committee Of Management Of The College, Respondent No.4, It Has Been Stated That It Is Incorrect To Assert That The Petitioner Has Discharged Duties To The Utmost Satisfaction Of The Authorities. In Fact, During The Period Of His Working As Officiating Principal, There Occurred Several Administrative Default On The Part Of The Petitioner Leading To Untoward Situation In The College. Reference Has Been Made To Certain News Item Published In Hindi Daily Amar Ujala On 8.9.2005. The Act Is Silent Regarding The Powers Of The Committee Of Management For Removing The Officiating Principal. It Has Been Stated That The Ordinance Governing The Appointment In Constituent College Has Not Yet Been Framed Under The Act. It Has Been Stated That There Has Been A Complaint Of A Girl Student Of B.Sc. Part II Against Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, A Teacher Of The College, Which Is Alleged To Have Taken Place On 17.3.2006 During The Practical Examination In The Chemistry Lab For Which The Complaint Was Made On 18.3.2006. No Action Was Taken On The Said Complaint Which Resulted In Serious Disturbances On 28.3.2006 And Loss Of Property Of The College. The Incident Was Not Reported To The Committee Of Management Nor Any Action Was Taken By The Petitioner. Had Timely Action Been Taken, Loss Of Property And Reputation Of The College Would Have Been Saved. The Petitioner Instead Of Taking Any Action In The Matter, Went Out Of Station And Was Not Available In Allahabad On 28.3.2006 And 29.3.2006, Without Giving Any Information Or Intimation. Even His Mobile Phone Was Switched Off So That There Could Be No Contact With Him Even On Telephone. On These Two Dates, Examinations Of The University Were Scheduled For Which The Petitioner Was The Examination Superintendent And His Absence Was, Therefore, Intentional. It Has Further Been Alleged That The Complaint Of The Girl Student Against Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava Was Delivered To The Petitioner On The Same Date But He Failed To Take Any Action Or Remedial Steps. Action Have Already Been Initiated Against Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava And A Three Member Committee Has Been Appointed To Conduct Enquiry And To Submit The Report. It Has Further Been Stated That On Account Of The Said Untoward Incident Which Took Place In The College, Was Widely Covered By The Newspapers And Was Bringing A Bad Name To The College. Taking Into Stock The Aforesaid Incident, An Emergent Meeting Of The Committee Of Management Was Held On 31.3.2006 In Which Steps To Control The Damage To The Property And Loss Of Reputation Of The College Was Discussed And In Order To Bring The Situation Under Control, The Committee Of Management Though It Fit And Proper And In The Interest Of All Concerned To Remove The Petitioner From The Post Of Officiating Principal For A Period Of Three Months And Instead Appoint Respondent No.6 For The Time Being. After The Decision Has Been Taken And The Petitioner Has Been Removed, The Situation Has Been Brought Under Control And The Academic Environment Has Once Again Been Cleared Of All Misgivings. According To The Respondent No.4, The Decision Dated 31.3.2006 Does Not Visit The Petitioner With Any Adverse Consequence As Of Date. It Is Only A Temporary Deprivation Of Work Of The Office Of Principal. The Objection Regarding The Petitioner Not Giving His Personal Affidavit In Support Of The Averments Made In The Writ Petition Has Also Been Taken As All Affidavits Have Been Given/sworn By His Son, Sri Samir Shanker And Not By The Petitioner.
The Petitioner Has Filed A Supplementary Affidavit Affirmed By His Son Sri Samir Shanker In Which It Has Been Stated That The Girl Had Complained About The Incident Of Misbehaviour Against The Teacher To The Chief Proctor On 18.3.2006 And The Chief Proctor Has Forwarded The Complaint Alongwith The Report To The Petitioner On 27.3.2006. He Had To Go To Lucknow On 28.3.2006 Regarding The Case Of Scholarship And Was At Lucknow On 28.3.2006 And 29.3.2006. He Was Not Aware About The Incident. After He Came Back To Allahabad And On Perusing The Report Of The Chief Proctor, He Immediately Ordered An In-house Enquiry In The Matter As The Matter Was Very Serious In Nature And Serious Allegations Have Been Levelled Against The Teacher. The Said Teacher Could Not Be Contacted Immediately As He Had Proceeded On Leave. However, Sri V.K.Sinha, Head Of Department, Chemistry, Respondent No.6, Submitted His Report On 29.3.2006 After Meeting Of The Teachers And Considering The Entire Evidence On Record In Which He Had Stated That No Such Incident Could Have Taken Place And The Incident Was The Result Of Conspiracy, Ill Will And Malice. The First Information Report Under Section 354 I.P.C. Was Also Lodged On 28.3.2006, I.e., After 10 Days Of The Occurrence And He Was Not At All Involved In The Said Incident. In Paragraph 11 Of The Supplementary Affidavit It Has Been Stated That He Had Taken Immediate Action Against The Teacher In As Much As He Ordered An In-house Enquiry As He Had Been Informed About The Incident On 27.3.2006 Which Was Before Proceeding On Official Duty For Lucknow For Attending The Scholarship Matter Of The Students Of The College At Lucknow.
In The Supplementary Counter Affidavit Filed By The President Of The Committee Of Management Of The College, Respondent No.4, It Has Been Stated That The Petitioner For The Reasons Best Known Is Not Filing His Personal Affidavit And Instead The Affidavits Which Are Being Filed, Are Of His Son Who Is Swearing The Various Paragraphs On The Basis Of Personal Knowledge Which Could Not Have Been Personal Knowledge Of The Son But Of The Petitioner And, Therefore, The Affidavits Should Be Ignored. It Has Further Been Stated That The Petitioner Himself Had Submitted An Application Dated 3.4.2006 Before The President Of The Committee Of Management Of The College, Respondent No.4, Praying For A Week's Time For Complying With The Order Dated 31.3.2006 Which Demonstrates That He Is Fully Ready And Willing To Comply With The Order Passed By The Committee Of Management And Does Not Have Any Grievance Against The Said Order. It Has Been Reiterated That The Complaint Dated 18.3.2006 Made By The Girl Student Was Also Entrusted To The Principal Of The College And The Chief Proctor Has Also Forwarded The Said Report To The Petitioner Alongwith His Endorsement On 20.3.2006 (19.3.2006 Being Sunday). It Is Wrong To Allege That The Chief Proctor Had Sent The Complaint To The Petitioner On 27.3.2006 Whereas The Fact Is That It Was Sent On 20.3.2006. The Plea Taken By The Petitioner That He Had To Go To Lucknow On 28.3.2006 To Attend The Case Regarding Scholarship Is To Cover Up For His Lapses And An Excuse As The Said Case Was Going On Before The State Consumer Forum For The Past Several Years And This Was The First Occasion On Which The Petitioner Thought It Fit To Attend The Proceedings Personally Which Itself Shows Lack Of Interest In The College Especially When The Examinations Were Going On And He Was The Examination Superintendent. On 28.3.20006 And 29.3.2006 Violent Incident Took Place And Unruly Students Ransacked The College And Caused Huge Loss To The Property. The Order For In House Enquiry Has Been Denied And, According To The Respondent No.4, The Averments Are Totally Unsubstantiated By Any Documentary Proof. It Has Further Been Stated That Veracity Or Otherwise Of The Incident Alleged By The Girl Student Against The Teacher Is In No Manner Related To The Petitioner. Whatever Action Has Been Taken Against The Petitioner, Is On Account Of His Default In Taking Steps To Control The Situation Leading To Violence And Arson In The College And Also In Absenting Himself From The College In The Thick Of Controversy.
In The Rejoinder Affidavit Filed By Sri Samir Shanker On Behalf Of The Petitioner, The Averments Made In The Writ Petition Have Been Reiterated To Be Correct. It Has Been Stated That During His Entire Tenure, The Petitioner Has Committed No Default In Rendering His Services In As Much As The Respondents Have Not Been Able To Bring Any Thing On Record Which Would Go To Demonstrate The Fact That He Has Committed Administrative Default. The Allegations Made In The News Item Is Wholly Incorrect And Has Been Emphatically Denied. The Petitioner Being The Seniormost Teacher In The College Is Entitled To Act As Officiating Principal. It Has Been Denied That The Incident Was Reported To Him On 20.3.2006 By The Chief Proctor. The Factum Of Ordering In House Enquiry Before Taking The Action In The Matter Against The Senior Teacher In The College Has Been Reiterated. The Delay, If Any, Has Been Caused By The Chief Proctor For Which The Petitioner Cannot Be Held Responsible. In The Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit Filed By Sri Samir Shanker, The Petitioner's Son, The Filing Of The Affidavit By Him Has Been Defended On The Ground That He Is Aware Of The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case And Has Been Duly Authorised By The Petitioner To Swear The Affidavits On His Behalf. Steps Were Taken By Him On 30.3.2006 Immediately After His Return From Lucknow By Asking The Concerned Teacher As Also The Head Of Department For Giving Their Comments And Report. He Also Met The Vice Chancellor Of The University Regarding His Relieving From The Post Of Officiating Principal. It Has Been Once Again Stated That He Did Not Receive Any Complaint On 20.3.2006 And It Was Received Only On 27.3.2006. The Allegation That Mobile Phone Was Switched Of, Is False As He Had Talked To The Respondent No.4 On 28.3.2006 And 29.3.2006.
As The Counter Affidavit And Rejoinder Affidavit Have Been Exchanged Between The Contesting Parties, With The Consent Of The Learned Counsels, The Writ Petition Is Being Heard And Disposed Of Finally At The Admission Stage Itself In Accordance With The Rules Of Court.
We Have Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Learned Senior Counsel, Assisted By Sri Anubhav Trivedi, Advocate, On Behalf Of The Petitioner, The Learned Standing Counsel Who Represents The Respondent No.2 And Sri Ashok Khare, Learned Senior Counsel, Assisted By Sri S.D.Kautilya, Advocate, On Behalf Of The Respondent No.4.
Sri Shashi Nandan, Learned Senior Counsel, Submitted That The Petitioner Being The Seniormost Teacher In The College Had Been Appointed As The Officiating Principal In Terms Of Statute 13.20 Of The First Statute Of The University And His Appointment To Officiate As Principal Which Was Initially For A Period Of Three Months, Was Subsequently Extended Till His Age Of Superannuation Or Regularly Selected Candidate By The U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Is Appointed By The College And, Therefore, The Petitioner Was Entitled To Continue On The Post Of The Officiating Principal Till Such Time A Regularly Selected Candidate Is Appointed Or He Attains The Age Of Superannuation. The Submission Is That The Petitioner Could Not Have Been Removed Before The Happening Of Any Of The Events Mentioned Above. He Further Submitted That The Petitioner Who Was Acting As Officiating Principal, Has Been Replaced By Another Person In The Same Capacity Which Is Not Permissible Under Law. He Further Submitted That The Petitioner Had Acted Swiftly The Moment He Received The Report From The Chief Proctor Regarding The Alleged Misbehaviour Of A Teacher With A Girl Student, Viz. Ordering For The In-house Enquiry, Calling For A Report From The Head Of Department Concerned And He Being Out Of Station On 28.3.2006 And 29.3.2006 Cannot Be Blamed For The Alleged Unruly Incident Created By The Students. He Has Unnecessarily Been Penalised For No Fault Of His. He Further Submitted That Under Statute 17.06 Of The First Statute Of The University Any Resolution Regarding Punishment Or Disciplinary Action Passed By The Committee Of Management Against Any Teacher Of An Associated College Is To Be Reported To The Vice Chancellor And Becomes Operative Only When It Is Approved By The Vice Chancellor And Not Before. In The Present Case, According To Him, The Vice Chancellor Has Not Yet Approved The Relieving Of The Petitioner From The Post Of The Officiating Principal And Appointing Another Person, Respondent No.6. According To Him, The Petitioner Has Been Removed Without Giving Any Show Cause Notice Or Any Opportunity Of Hearing, Which Is Wholly Illegal And Contrary To The Principles Of Equity, Fair Play And Justice. In Support Of His Aforesaid Submissions, He Has Relied Upon The Following Decisions:-
(i) Radha Raizada And Others V. Committee Of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College And Others, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 (F.B., Alld.);
(ii) State Of Haryana V. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SLR 770 = AIR 1992 SC 2130.

Sri Ashok Khare, Learned Senior Counsel, Submitted That The Petitioner Did Not Take Any Effective Step To Control The Situation Which Had Arisen Due To The Alleged Misbehaviour By A Teacher Of The College With A Girl Student In Spite Of Having Knowledge Of The Said Incident On 20.3.2006. He Just Sat Over The Matter And Permitted The Situation To Go Out Of Control So Much So That On 28.3.2006 And 29.3.2006, He Had Gone To Lucknow Despite The Fact That The Examinations Were Going On And As Centre Superintendent He Was To Remain Present In The College. Even His Mobile Phone Was Switched Off And He Was Beyond Reach. The Agitated Students Not Only Misbehaved With The Staff Of The College But Also Created Disturbances Causing Loss To The Property Of The College Which Lowered The Prestige And Reputation Of The College. The Committee Of Management In Its Wisdom After Hearing The Version Of The Petitioner Decided To Replace Him By Another Person Which Was Done With A View To Control The Situation And Bring Normalcy To The Functioning Of The College. According To Him, Reliance Placed By The Petitioner On Statutes 13.20 And 17.06 Of The First Statute Of The University Is Wholly Misplaced In As Much As Statute 13.20 Relates To The Initial Appointment Which Has Been Followed In The Present Case. According To Him, The Full Bench Decision Of This Court In The Case Of Radha Raizada (supra) Relied Upon By The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner, Does Not Lay Down That In An Emergent Situation The Officiating Principal Who May Be The Seniormost Teacher, Cannot Be Removed. According To Him, The Decision Has Been Taken By The Committee Of Management As A Temporary Measure And It Does Not Cast Any Stigma On The Petitioner. Moreover, The Petitioner Is Being Paid Full Salary And Allowances Which He Was Drawing In The Capacity Of The Officiating Principal And The Matter Would Be Reviewed After The Expiry Of The Period Of Three Months. He, Thus, Submitted That The Petitioner Is Not Entitled To Any Relief Under The Equity Jurisdiction From This Court Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India. He Has Relied Upon A Decision Of This Court In The Case Of Satya Prakash Singh And Others V. State Of U.P. And Others, 1999 (2) E.S.C. 1303 (Alld.).
Having Given Our Anxious Consideration To The Various Pleas Raised By The Learned Counsel For The Parties, We Find That The College Was An Associated College Of The University Prior To The Enactment Of The Act. However, With Effect From 14.7.2005 It Has Become A Constituent College. Under Sub-section (2) Of Section 45 Of The Act It Has Been Provided That Till Such Time As The First Ordinances Are Not Made Under Sub-section (2) Of Section 29 In Respect Of The Matters That Are To Be Provided For By The Ordinances Under This Act And Statutes, The Relevant Provisions Of The Statutes And The Ordinances Made Immediately Before The Commencement Of This Act Under The Provisions Of The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 Shall Be Applicable Insofar As They Are Not Inconsistent With The Provisions Of This Act And The Statute. It Is An Admitted Case Between The Parties That The First Ordinances Have Not Yet Been Framed And, Therefore, The Statutes Which Were Applicable To The University Before The Commencement Of This Act Shall Be Applicable In The Present Case. Statute 13.20 Reads As Follows :-
"13.20 When The Office Of The Principal Of An Associated College Falls Vacant, The Management May Appoint Any Teacher To Officiate As Principal For A Period Of 3 Months Or Until The Appointment Of A Regular Principal, Whichever Is Earlier. If On Or Before Expiry Of The Period Of 3 Months, Any Regular Principal Is Not Appointed Or Such A Principal Does Not Resume Office, The Senior Most Teacher In The College Shall Officiate As Principal Of Such College Until A Regular Principal Is Appointed."

From A Reading Of The Aforesaid Provision, It Is Clear That It Provides That The Committee Of Management Can Appoint Any Teacher To Officiate As Principal For A Period Of Three Months Or Until The Appointment Of A Regular Principal, Whichever Is Earlier. However, After Expiry Of The Period Of 3 Months, If A Regular Principal Is Not Appointed Or Does Not Take Charge, The Senior Most Teacher In The College Has To Be Appointed As Principal Of Such College Until A Regular Principal Is Appointed. In Terms Of The Provisions Of The Aforesaid Statute, The Petitioner Being The Seniormost Teacher Was Initially Appointed For A Period Of Three Months And Thereafter Has Been Permitted To Continue Till A Regularly Selected Principal Is Appointed Or He Attains The Age Of Superannuation, Whichever Is Earlier. Thus, The Management Has Complied With The Provisions Of The Statute 13.20 Of The First Statute Of The University.
We Further Find That The Statute Is Silent As To What Should Be The Procedure Where An Officiating Principal Has To Be Removed For A Short Period Which Is Required In The Best Interest Of The Institution/College. In The Case Of Satya Prakash Singh (supra) A Division Bench Of This Court Has Held As Follows:-
"But It Is Settled Principle Of Service Jurisprudence That Every Employer Has Implied Power, So Long As The Service Contract Is Subsisting, To Restrain An Employee From Doing Anything In Discharge Of His Service. Such A Direction Is Binding On The Employee Not Because Of The Contract Of Service Is Suspended, As In Case Of Suspension Normally Understood, But Because Of The Fact That Contract Of Service Is Intact And Employee Is Bound To Obey His Employer. The Only Condition Is That The Employer Must Pay His Salary. And In Case Of An Employer; A State Within The Meaning Of Article 12 The Order Should Neither Be Arbitrary Nor Discriminatory."

Applying The Principles Laid Down In The Aforementioned Case To The Facts Of The Present Case, We Are Of The Considered Opinion That There Is Ample Power With The Committee Of Management To Decide As To Whether In Order To Meet An Emergent Situation The Officiating Principal Should Be Permitted To Discharge The Function Or Not. If The Committee Of Management In Its Wisdom In Order To Control The Damage And To Restore The Normalcy Decides Not To Take Work From The Officiating Principal For A Temporary Period And Instead Directs Some Body Else To Take Control, It Cannot Be Said That The Said Action Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction.
From The Record We Find That Admittedly Unruly Incident On Account Of The Alleged Misbehaviour By A College Teacher With A Girl Student Had Taken Place. The Students Had Gone On A Rampage And Had Destroyed The Property Of The College. The Petitioner Was Out Of Station On That Day. We Are Not Going Into The Merits As To Whether The Petitioner Is Responsible For His Inaction Or Had Intentionally Gone To Lucknow Or Not. As The Situation Required A Drastic Remedial Step To Be Taken, It Was The Bounden Duty Of The Committee Of Management To Restore Normalcy And Also To See That The Confidence Of The Students, Parents And All Concerned Is Restored. If A Drastic Measure Has To Be Taken By Divesting The Petitioner Of His Function And Duty For A Temporary Period, That Cannot Be Said To Be Not Warranted Under Law. The Court Takes Judicial Notice Of The Fact That Where Incident Of Arson, Loot, Destruction Of Property And Life Takes Place, The Administrator Or The Government Has To Take Drastic Action Either By Directing The Person Who Are At The Helm Of Affairs Either To Proceed On Leave Or By Transferring Them To Some Other Place, If Possible, In Order To Bring The Situation Under Control. This Is What Has Actually Happened In The Present Case And We Are Of The Considered Opinion That It Does Not Require Any Interference In Exercise Of Our Equity Jurisdiction And Power Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India.
So Far As The Full Bench Decision Of This Court In The Case Of Radha Raizada (supra) Relied Upon By The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Is Concerned, It May Be Mentioned Here That In That Case This Court Has Held That It Is Mandatory On The Part Of The Management To Fill Up The Vacancy By Promotion On The Basis Of Seniority Alone. However, If There Are Grave Charges Against The Seniormost Teacher Which Are So Serious That It Will Be Held Detrimental To The Interest Of The Institution To Appoint Him As Ad Hoc Principal Or He Suffers From Such A Serious Physical Disability That He Cannot Properly Perform The Function Of The Principal, He Must Be Given A Show Cause Notice By The Management Stating The Charges Against Him Or Of The Physical Disability And Stating That It Is Proposed To Supersede Him. After Considering The Teacher's Reply, The Management Can Supersede Him But Only By A Reasoned Order. No Such Situation Exists In The Present Case In As Much As The Petitioner Had Already Been Appointed As The Officiating Principal In The Year 2002 And Was Allowed To Continue. He Has Been Divested Of That Post Only On Account Of The Incident Which Had Occurred On 28.3.2006 And 29.3.2006 In Which Large Scale Destruction Of Property Of The College Was Done By The Students And Other Persons In A Mob Violence. It Was An Extraordinary Situation Which Required Drastic Action And In View Of The Principles Laid Down By This Court In The Case Of Satya Prakash Singh (supra) Such A Power Does Exist With The Committee Of Management.
From A Perusal Of The Resolution Dated 31.3.2006 Passed By The Committee Of Management, A Copy Of Which Has Been Filed As Annexure CA 5 To The Counter Affidavit Filed By Chaudhary Jitendra Nath Singh, Respondent No.4, We Find That Opportunity Had Been Given By The Committee Of Management To The Petitioner And In Fact He Had Also Given Written Explanation Which Was Not Found Satisfactory. The Principle Of Natural Justice Has, Thus, Been Complied With.
Reliance Placed On Statute 17.06 Of The First Statute Of The University Is Also Misplaced. For Ready Reference, Statute 17.06 Is Reproduced Below :-
"17.06 (1) No Order Dismissing, Removing, Or Terminating The Services Of A Teacher On Any Ground Mentioned In Clause (1) Or Clause (2) Of Statute 17.04 (except In The Case Of A Conviction For An Offence Involving Moral Turpitude Or Of Abolition Of Post) Shall Be Passed Unless A Charge Has Been Framed Against The Teacher And Communicated To Him With A Statement Of The Grounds On Which It Is Proposed To Take Action And He Has Been Given Adequate Opportunity -
(i) Of Submitting A Written Statement Of His Defence;
(ii) Of Being Heard In Person, If He So Chooses; And
(iii) Of Calling And Examining Such Witnesses In His Defence As He May Wish:
Provided That The Management Or The Officer Authorised By It To Conduct The Inquiry May, For Sufficient Reasons To Be Recorded In Writing Refuse To Call Any Witness.

(2) The Management May, At Any Time, Ordinarily Within Two Months From The Date Of The Inquiry Officer's Report Pass A Resolution Dismissing Or Removing The Teacher Concerned From Service, Or Terminating His Services Mentioning The Grounds Of Such Dismissal, Removal Or Termination.

(3) The Resolution Shall Forthwith Be Communicated To The Teacher Concerned And Also Be Reported To The Vice Chancellor For Approval And Shall Not Be Operative Unless So Approved By The Vice Chancellor.

(4) The Management May, Instead Of Dismissing, Removing Or Terminating The Services Of The Teacher, Pass A Resolution Inflicting A Lesser Punishment By Reducing The Pay Of The Teacher For A Specific Period Or By Stopping Increments Of His Salary For A Specified Period Not Exceeding Three Years And/or May Deprive The Teacher Of His Pay During The Period, If Any Of His Suspension. The Resolution By The Management Inflicting Such Punishment Shall Be Reported To The Vice Chancellor And Shall Be Operative Only When And To The Extent Approved By The Vice Chancellor."

From A Reading Of The Aforesaid Provision, It Is Amply Clear That It Would Be Applicable In A Case Where A Teacher Is Dismissed, Removed Or His Services Are Terminated. In The Present Case No Disciplinary Action Has Been Taken Against The Petitioner So Far. He Has Only Been Divested Of His Functions Of The Officiating Principal For A Temporary Period And, Therefore, The Provision Of Statute 17.06 Would Not Be Attracted Which Requires Resolution To Be Reported To The Vice Chancellor And Becomes Operative Only When Approved By The Vice Chancellor.
There Cannot Be Any Dispute That One Ad Hoc Employee Cannot Be Replaced By Another Ad Hoc Employee But This Principle Does Admit Of Certain Exceptions. If In A Given Case, Drastic Action Has To Be Taken For Bringing The Situation Under Control And To Restore The Normalcy, The Person Working As Ad Hoc Or On Officiating Capacity Can Be Replaced By Another Person In The Same Capacity.
In View Of The Foregoing Discussions, We Do Not Find Any Merits In This Petition Which Is Hereby Dismissed. However, There Shall Be No Order As To Costs

Go to Navigation