AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U. P. Singh, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Chancellor dated 381979 (Annexure10) and the orders of the ViceChancellor dated 171978 and 1271978 contained in Annexures7 and 13 respectively. He has further prayed for not giving any effect to the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 1961978, terminating the services of the petitioner and has asked for a direction to be issued to respondents to permit him to work as Principal of the Mahamana Malviya Degree College, Khekra, district Meerut.
In My 1974 the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the Mahamana Malviya Degree College, Khekra, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as �the college�). In the year 1977 the University Examinations were held. A report regarding certain irregularities in the conduct of the examination at the said Degree College, which was an Examination Centre of the University, had been received by the University. On it, the ViceChancellor, Meerut University appointed a committee to enquire into the alleged irregularities, committed in the conduct of the examination at the college.
The Inquiry Committee enquired into the matter and found that in the conduct of the examination of the University for the year 1977, at the college centre, the petitioner was acting as Senior Superintendent of the Examination Centre. He had appointed Sri Data Ram Misra and Sri Jagdish Kumar as Assistant Superintendents for conducting examinations, although, Sri M. N. Sharma, who was the senior most teacher of the college, was not appointed as Assistant Superintendent for conducting the examinations. The Inquiry Committee found gross irregularities committed by the petitioner in the conduct of the examinations. la the said examination the petitioner''s son Sri Rahul was also appearing in the University Examination from the said college In the evening shift on 2941977 his son Rahul appeared at the examination in Basic Statistics General course. After considering the statements of the witnesses, the Inquiry Committee found that the petitioner illegally helped his son and the petitioner had replaced the answer book of his son and that signatures of the Invigilator on the alleged answer book were not of the Invigilator Sri S. K. Sharma. The Inquiry Committee found that the examination of Sri Rahul was not fair. It, therefore, recommended that the examination of Sri Rahul be arranged in the University. The report of the Inquiry Committee was communicated by the University in its letter of September, 1977 to the college, directing the Management of the College that necessary action should be taken against the person who wore in the employment of the college.
In its meeting held on 1991977 the Committee of Management, after considering the report of the Inquiry Committee, by its resolution suspended the petitioner and resolved to hold an inquiry in the entire matter. la pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 2791977. It was specifically mentioned in the chargesheet that a meeting of the Inquiry Committee shall be held in the college premises on 16101977 and that the petitioner should present himself in the said meeting. Although the chargesheet was received by the petitioner, he did not submits his reply and by his letter dated 12101977 he asked for further time of 15 days to submit his reply. On his request, the meeting of the Inquiry Committee was adjourned to 25101977. The petitioner was again informed by registered post on 19101977. Although it was received by him, the petitioner again did not appear before the enquiry committee on 25101977. ,
5 Thereafter, the Inquiry Committee considered every aspect of the matter� and found that the petitioner had committed illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of the University Examinations, held in April/ May 1977 In fact, he had changed the answer book of his son Sri Rahul with ulterior motive. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended that the petitioner should be punished. On 3111977, the Committee of Management, after considering the report of the Inquiry Committee, unanimously resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service and further that necessary approval of the ViceChancellor be obtained.''
The ViceChancellor, then gave notice to the petitioner and the respondent to consider the matter on 21121977. It was adjourned to 23 12 1977 and on that date ViceChancellor heard the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter, the ViceChancellor, vide his letter dated 24121977 directed the respondents that the petitioner be given one more chance to appear before the Inquiry Committee and copies of all the relevant papers be also given to the petitioner.
The Inquiry Committee, thereafter, fixed the matter on 20 1 1978 about which, the information was sent to the petitioner by registered cost which was received by him, but even then he did not appear before the inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee again considered the matter and confirmed its report dated 25S04977. Thereafter, the Managing Committee vide its letter dated 2311978 informed the University that the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. It Seated the ViceChancellor to accord approve to the proposal of the Committee of Management for dismissal of the petitioner. All the documents demanded by the petitioner were given to him on 1421978 m the office of the University. A copy of the letter of the Managing Committee 252 23 11978 containing the endorsement made by the petitioner m token of receipt of ail the papers, has been filed alongwith the counteraffidavit as Annexure5A.
Thereafter, the Committee of Management again received a letter from the University, stating that all the documents demanded by the petitioner, were handed over to him on 1421978 and the petitioner had been directed to appear before the Inquiry Committee on 2421978. By the said letter, the Committee of Management was required to submit his case after 2421978 for consideration of the ViceChancellor. In spite of the said letter of the University, the petitioner again did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. The Secretary of the Managing Committee therefore, by his letter dated 2521978 informed the ViceChancellor that inspite of the direction given by the University, the petitioner did not appear on 2421978. It stated that the petitioner had now been given enough opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Committee, but he did not avail the same. It was requested that the Vice Chancellor should now accord approval to the proposal of the Committee of Management for dismissal of the petitioner. After receiving this information, the University again asked the respondents and the petitioner to appeal before the ViceChancellor on 2441978 On the said date the ViceChancellor heard the parties and by his letter dated 2951978 informed the petitioner and the respondents to appear before him again on 561978 along with relevant papers.
Again on 561978 the ViceChancellor heard the matter and, after considering the entire material on record, by his letter dated 1561978 found that the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management was harsh and requested the Management to reconsider the same. In pursuance of the said order of the ViceChancellor the Committee of Management reconsidered the matter in its meeting of 1961978 and resolved that instead of dismissal his services should be terminated. Thereafter, the ViceChancellor, after considering the entire material on record, by his order dated 171978, granted approval to the proposal of the Committee of Management for terminating the services of the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged the said order of the ViceChancellor dated 1st July, 1978 by preferring a Reference under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, before the Chancellor. After considering the entire material on record, the Chancellor rejected the Reference of the petitioner by his order dated 381979. The Chancellor found that the petitioner was given enough opportunity but he failed to cooperate with the Inquiry Committee. He was rightly found guilty and, as such, the order of termination passed by the Committee of Management, had been rightly approved by the ViceChancellor. The Chancellor also found that the order of the ViceChancellor, granting approval, was in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Statutes, and, there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act, Statutes or Ordinances. On these findings, the Chancellor rejected the Reference by the aforesaid order, which is contained in Annexure10
The petitioner has assailed the orders of the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor and in this writ petition, he has prayed for a writ of mandamus, commanding the Committee of Management not to give effect to its resolution dated 3111977 and 1961978. The challenge has been founded primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing either by the Inquiry Committee or by the Committee of Management or the ViceChancellor. It was further contended that the approval accorded by the ViceChancellor was illegal.
On consideration of the entire material on record emerging from the petition, counteraffidavits and rejoinder affidavit filed in this case, none of these contentions are to be validly accepted and are, accordingly rejected.
The contention of the petitioner is contrary to the record, inasmuch as, he was afforded reasonable opportunity at every stage, but he failed to avail the same. It appears that the petitioner deliberately avoided the Inquiry Committee and the Committee of Management and inspite of various opportunities afforded to him, he did not appear either before the Inquiry Committee or the Committee of Management and, therefore, the Committee of Management was totally justified in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the statutes and its proposal for terminating the services of the petitioner was validly approved by the ViceChancellor. On appeal, the Chancellor as well, validly recorded his finding that although the petitioner had been given opportunity at every stage, he failed to cooperate with the inquiry Committee and that the approval given by the ViceChancellor was in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the petitioner was found guilty of serious charges of committing illegalities and irregularities in the examinations conducted by the University. It has been amply proved on record that the petitioner and his son had copied the answers at their house. In fact, the petitioner''s son had not even passed Intermediate class and the petitioner being the Principal of the College and Superintendent of the Examination Centre, illegally admitted him in B. A. Class and permitted him to appear at the examination of the University. A copy of the letter of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad, contained in AnnexureCA11 filed with the counteraffidavit, has been referred to prove that the petitioner''s son had not passed the Intermediate class. The facts of this case has further established that the petitioner had changed the answer book of his son. It was further found by the Inquiry Committee, on consideration of materials on record that the signatures of the Invigilator were not present on the answer book.
In this view, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the impugned orders did not call for any interference and are, accordingly, upheld.
In the result, the petition is dismissed. Consequently interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.