Committee of Management,Dev Nagri Post Graduate College,Meerut,through Its Hony.Secretary vs Vice-Chancellor,Choudhary Charan Singh University,Meerut & Ors.

Sudhir Narain, J.—The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 1531997 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition) constituting the Enquiry Committee against the petitioner and letter dated 2731997 to appear before the Enquiry Committee.

Dev Nagri Post Graduate College, Meerut ( here in after referred to as the College) is affiliated to Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. A Committee of Management manages and controls the affairs of the College. Dr. P. C. Pachauri was Principal of the College. The petitioner suspended him on the charges of financial irregularities, misconduct and mismanagement. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. It appears complaint was made to the Vice Chancellor, Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut against the conduct of the Committee of Management of the College. The Vice Chancellor constituted an Enquiry Committee to make enquiry against the conduct and functioning of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a notice to submit its reply by letter dated 2731997. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 1 constituting the Enquiry Committee dated 1531997 and show cause notice dated 2731997. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the ViceChancellor has no jurisdiction under Section 13 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short the Act) to constitute any enquiry committee to make an enquiry against the Committee of Management of the College.

Clause (a) of subSection (1) of Section 13 of the Act provides that the ViceChancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall supervise and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and associated colleges. This provision vests in the ViceChancellor to exercise the general supervisory power and control all the affairs of the college. In exercise of such power, the ViceChancellor has power to make enquiry in the affairs of a college himself or to appoint a committee to make an enquiry and such committee is to submit a report to the ViceChancellor. It is not necessary that an opportunity of hearing is to be given by the ViceChancellor before constituting an enquiry committee.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that such power can be exercised by the State Government only under Section 57 of the State Universities Act. Section 57 of the State Universities Act empowers the State Government to issue notice and take action against the Committee of Management when it has committed any default in payment of salary, mismanagement etc. This provision does not take away power of the ViceChancellor to supervise or control the affairs of the Committee of Management of the Colleges.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ViceChancellor has in fact exercised this power only to pressurise the Committee of Management not tc continue with the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. P. C. Pachauri, respondent No. 3. It has not been shown that the ViceChancellor is acting mala fide. There is no material to establish that the ViceChancellor or any member of the Committee which has been constituted by the ViceChancellor, is any way either related to respondent No. 3 or otherwise interested in him.

The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Committee has asked for various documents from the petitioner by letter dated 1st April, 1997 which in fact are required by the petitioner for making enquiry against respondent No. 3. It is open to the petitioner to submit reply to the Committee that the document directed to be produced from it, are required by it for the purpose of making enquiry against respondent No. 3. It can submit photostat copies of those documents along with original documents. There is no reason that the Committee, if the photostat copies of the relevant documents are submitted, shall not return the original documents after getting examined the original documents with photostat copies. The petitioner can made a representation to this effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end requested that the examination of the University is going on and requires a reasonable time to produce the record. The petitioner can make a such a request before the Enquiry Committee itself.

There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.