Leelakrishnan vs The Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

S. Sankarasubban, J.—The Original Petitions challenge the same proceedings. The Writ Appeals were filed against the interim orders passed in the Original Petitions. When the Writ Appeals came up for hearing, it was agreed that the Original Petitions can be heard. Hence all matters were heard together and they are disposed of by a common judgment.

Petitioner in O.P. No. 4031/96, Dr. Leelakrishnan is a member of the Syndicate of Cochin University of Science and Technology (hereinafter called ''the University''). The Chancellor nominated him to the Senate of the University from the constituency of eminent educationists u/s 19 of the University Act (hereinafter called ''the Act''). His term expires on 13th February 1999.

Petitioner in O.P. No. 4405/96, Prasannakumar is a Journalist. The Chancellor nominated him as a member of the Syndicate of the University and thereafter he was nominated as a member of the Syndicate of the University by the Government of Kerala. His term expires on 13th February 1999.

The Registrar is an officer of the University. u/s 13 of the Act, the Government has to select a person from a panel of two names furnished by the Syndicate to the post of Registrar. The person thus selected by the Government is to be appointed as Registrar by the Syndicate. The entire controversy in this case has arisen as a result of the difference of opinion with regard to selection of the panel of two names u/s 13 of the Act.

The incumbent of the post of Register was to retire on 30th November 1995. The issue came before the syndicate on 2nd September 1995. It again came on 30th November 1995. On that date the Syndicate resolved to authorise the Vice Chancellor to constitute a Selection Committee u/s 31(2)(c) of the Act to interview the candidates found eligible and submit the panel to the Government. Petitioner in O.P. No. 4031/96 is Dr. Leelakrishnan. According to him, the Selection Committee u/s 31(2)(c) of the Act is concerning the non-teaching posts and it is not applicable to the post of Registrar. Regarding the post of Registrar, the Syndicate itself has to select the persons. Subsequently, the Selection Committee was constituted which consisted of two experts who were not members of the Syndicate. On 8th February 1996 the Vice Chancellor placed before the Syndicate the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Some members including the Petitioners wanted a fresh Selection Committee to be formed. According to the minutes, the members became unruly and aggressive and behaved in unparliamentary manner (the name of members are not mentioned). The Vice Chancellor adjourned the meeting since he felt that it was difficult to continue the meeting. Thereafter, a written representation was prepared by the Petitioners and Ors. on l1th February 1996 and they submitted it to the Vice Chancellor on 12th February 1996 and met him in his chamber. The representation is Ext. P-3. The representation is signed by the Petitioners and 4 other members. In Ext. P-3, it is stated that the Vice Chancellor''s action in abruptly adjourning the meeting was irregular. The reason for adjourning the meeting was not stated. They asked the Vice Chancellor to hold the adjourned meeting on 15th February 1996. It was further stated that the Vice Chancellor will be responsible for the consequences if there was in action on his part.

According the Petitioners, when they went to the chamber of the Vice Chancellor, he got flared up and said that he was not going to convene the meeting of the Syndicate and asked them to clear out of his chamber. By communication dated 19th February 1996 the Registrar informed the Petitioners that the Vice Chancellor has ordered that the Petitioners should not be invited to attend any meeting of the Syndicate or its committee or other bodies in which they are members. According to the communication, the prohibition will be in force till the Petitioners apologies in writing for the highly objectionable language and conduct and also they give a solemn undertaking that this would not be repeated in future. This communication is produced as Ext. P-4 in O.P. No. 4031 of 1996 and Ext. P-2 in O.P. No. 4405 of 1996. The Petitioners challenge Exts. P-2 and P-4. Interim petitions were filed for stay of Exts. P-4 and P-2. The main grounds raised in both the Original petitions are that the Vice Chancellor has no power to pass the impugned orders against the Petitioners, he has no disciplinary control over the Petitioners, there was no scope for invoking the emergency power and the violation of the principles of natural justice. The majority of the members agreed with Dr. Leelakrishnan regarding the illegality of the constitution of the Selection Committee u/s 31(2)(c) of the Act. There was no disorder or any cause for adjourning the proceeding of the meeting on 8th February 1996. Petitioner in O.P. No. 4405/96 has further contended that neither has he used any objectionable language nor he conducted violently.

Second Respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the C.M.P. which is also treated as the counter affidavit in the main petition. He explained the proceedings on 30th November 1995 with regard to the appointment of Registrar. According to him, the selection panel was constituted in accordance with law. However, the Petitioners and Ors. who entertained a dissenting view became unruly and aggressive and started behaving in unparlimentary manner hurling abuses at the chair and it was impossible for him to preserve order and conduct business and hence the meeting was adjourned sine die.

Regarding the incidents on 12th February 1996 according to the second Respondent, Sri. Prasannakumar, approached him menacingly and abused him and threatened to break his teeth if he did not act as required in the petition. Thereafter, he asked the Petitioner and Ors. to leave the room and called the security staff. On the same day he sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police for police protection for him [Ext. R-2(b) is the letter]. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the Vice Chancellor has stated that he directed that the Petitioners need not be invited to attend the meeting of the Syndicate and other bodies, since he felt that if such conduct was repeated it would seriously affect the business and decorum of the Syndicate and dignity of the office of the Vice Chancellor.

It is further stated by the Vice Chancellor that he informed the Chancellor about the happening on 8th February 1996 and 12th February 1996 by Ext. R-2 (c) letter. A memorandum was submitted by the Petitioners and Ors. to the Chancellor complaining against the action taken by the Vice Chancellor. The Secretary to the Governor asked the Vice Chancellor to furnish certain particulars by Ext. R-2 (d). Second Respondent has taken the contention that since the Chancellor has been approached, the Original Petitions are not maintainable.

As already stated, interim applications were filed for staying the operation of Exts. P-2 and P-4. By order dated 21st March 1996, a learned Single Judge stayed the operation of Exts. P-2 and P-4 till the disposal of the Original Petitions. It is against the interim orders that the Writ Appeals were filed. The Division Bench by order dated 22nd March 1996 stayed the orders of the learned Single Judge.

Thereafter, the Writ Appeals were posted for hearing. During the course of the hearing, it was submitted that the Syndicate has not so far considered the action of the Vice Chancellor. Hence by order dated 8th August 1996, the Division Bench made it clear that the continuance of the hearing of the appeals will not stand in the way of arriving at its own conclusion. Petitioners were allowed to participate in the meeting in order to put forth their objections. The Syndicate was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. There was a direction to consider the matter in the meeting of the Syndicate on 17th August 1996. The Division Bench was informed that only the officiating Vice Chancellor will preside over the meeting. The Pro Vice Chancellor, who was acting as Vice Chancellor called for a meeting of the Syndicate on 17th August 1996. According to the Petitioners, since there was no quorum for that meeting, the meeting was adjourned. Thereafter, the second Respondent cancelled his leave and convened Anr. meeting on 31st August 1996. He presided over the meeting on 31st August 1996. The Petitioner in O.P. No. 4031/96 was present while the Petitioner in the other Original Petition was not personally present. But he submitted written objection, copy of which is produced as Ext. P-4 along with C.M.P. No. 25907/96 in O.P. No. 4405/96. The Syndicate thereafter considered the matter. Ext. P-5 is the minutes. By a majority of 8 to 5, the Syndicate approved the action of the Vice Chancellor. The Petitioner in O.P. No. 4405/96 has challenged Ext. P-5 by an amendment petition.

Petitioner in O.P. No. 4031/96 has filed an affidavit W.A. No. 539/96 on 23rd September 1996 of which the following are relevant:

When the Syndicate met on 31st August 1996 I raised the objections that Dr. Adiyodi cannot preside over the meeting since he was impleaded in writ petition and appeal as a party against whom I have alleged mala fides. It was immediately overruled.

The Vice Chancellor Dr. Adiyodi also ordered that I should leave as soon as I give the explanation. I stated that this was against the letter and spirit of the orders of the court. I should participate in the deliberations without voting rights and I could get an opportunity to clarify any points asked by the other members of the Syndicate. The Vice Chancellor overruled and declared that no questions be allowed and I should leave the hall immediately after submitting the explanation.

* * * * 11. Vice Chancellor asked me to go out of the Syndicate room immediately after the explanation was read out. Accordingly I left the room. To my knowledge no discussion or consideration of the objections took place.

The Vice Chancellor did not care to comply with the direction in the order of this Hon''ble Court in the spirit in which the same had been issued. His very presence in the meeting vitiated the whole proceedings.

We heard senior counsel Sri N. Dharmadan and counsel Sri P.K. Ibrahim on behalf of the Petitioners and senior counsel Sri P.N.K. Achan on behalf of the Respondents.

The relevant files were made available to us. The appointment to the post of Registrar was in the agenda in the meeting of the Syndicate on 30th November 1995. It was item 364.61. It was resolved to constitute a Selection Committee by the Vice Chancellor as per Section 31(2)(c) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology (Amendment) Act, 1989 to interview the candidates found eligible by the committee specially constituted by the Syndicate to screen the applications for consideration for the post of Registrar and submit a panel of suitable candidates to the Syndicate. Dr. Leelakrishnan dissented. According to Dr. Leelakrisnnan, the Selection Committee envisaged u/s 31(2)(c) is one for the selection of non-teaching staff. Registrar is an officer mentioned in Chapter III of the Act. u/s 13 the selection has to be done by the Syndicate itself and it cannot abdicate its function. With regard to the meeting on 8th February 1996, the appointment of the Registrar was not in the agenda. It seems that as soon as the items in the agenda were over, the Vice Chancellor placed before the Syndicate the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It was discussed as item 367.75. From the minutes, it is seen that the interview was held on 7th February 1996. It is seen that some of the members demanded that the selection should be made by the Syndicate itself. It is further stated in the minutes that "three members became unruly and aggressive and started behaving in un parliamentary manner hurling abuses at the Vice Chancellor". The Vice Chancellor felt it difficult to continue the meeting for transacting the official business before the Syndicate, he adjourned the meeting sine die.

After the incidents mentioned on 12th February 1996 in the chamber of the Vice Chancellor, a note is issued by the Vice Chancellor on 19th February 1996. The note states as follows:

I am to direct you, in my capacity as Chairman of the Syndicate and Vice Chancellor of the University, with the honour, rights, privileges and powers vested in me thereby, not to permit or invite Dr. P. Leelakrishnan and Sri P.N. Prasannakumar both members of the Syndicate, to attend any meeting of the Syndicate or Committee thereof, or other bodies in which they are members. This is with immediate effect and shall remain in force until they have apologized in writing for their highly objection-nable and violent conduct, language and behaviour all unbecoming of the members of the Syndicate-at the Syndicate meeting held on 8th February 1996 and subsequently in my chambers on 12th February 1996, and until they have furnished a solemn undertaking that this would not be repeated in future.

The note is a direction to the Registrar. It does not give any indication as to any emergency power was being exercised. It is issued in his capacity as Chairman of the Syndicate and Vice Chancellor of the University. On the same day, it is seen that the Registrar communicated letters to the Petitioners. After the interim direction of the Division Bench dated 8th August 1996, the Syndicate met to consider the Vice Chancellor''s report. The report refers to the following:

(1) Minutes of the meeting dated 8th February 1996.

(2) The Vice Chancellor presumes knowledge of the Syndicate with regard to names of the members who became unruly and aggressive (but mentions the names of Prasannakumar and Dr. Leelakrishnan).

(3) The members of the Syndicate have no right as per the Act or Statute to convene a meeting of the Syndicate.

(4) The behaviour of Prasannakumar in the chamber is mentioned. (5) Section 11 (14) castes a duty on the Vice Chancellor to carry on the proceedings of the University in accordance with law. Hence he reported to the Chancellor on 12th February 1996. (6) Since the acts and conduct of the abovementioned members, particularly Dr. P. Leelakrishnan and Sri P.N. Prasannakumar in die Syndicate meeting on 8th February 1996 and in Vice Chancellor''s Chamber on 12th February 1996 were such that similar acts and conduct, if repeated in the next Syndicate meeting, will perilously affect the business and decorum of the Syndicate and the dignity of the office of Vice Chancellor who is the ex officio Chairman of the Syndicate, the Vice Chancellor directed, in the best interest of the University, that the said two members shall not be invited to attend any meeting of the Syndicate or its committees or other bodies of which they are members, before they explain their conduct and the Registrar informed them accordingly on 19th February 1996. Copies of those communications are Annexure IV (issued to Dr. P. Leelakrishnan) and Annexure V (issued to Sri P.N. Prasannakumar).

The question for consideration is whether the action of the Vice Chancellor in not permitting the Petitioners to take part in the proceedings of the Syndicate and other bodies of the University as confirmed by the Syndicate is legal. Petitioners were nominated as members of the Senate by the Chancellor. The Government of Kerala then nominated them to the Syndicate and they can continue as members of the Syndicate till 13th February 1999. Being members of the Senate and Syndicate, they are as a matter of right entitled to the notice of the meeting of the bodies and are entitled to attend the meetings of the bodies and participate in the proceedings. Their right to continue as members cannot be interfered with excepting in the circumstances mentioned in Section 46 of the Act. Section 46 of the Act reads as follows:

Resignation or removal of members of any Authority or Body.-

(1) Any member of any authority or body of the University may resign his office by letter addressed to the Registrar and the resignation shall take effect from the date of receipt of the letter by the Registrar.

(2) The Vice Chancellor may on the recommendation of not less than two-thirds of the number of members of the Syndicate, remove the name of any person convicted by a court of law of any offence involving moral delinquency or punished by the University for mal-practice connected with any University examination from membership of any authority or body of the University and for the same reason as may withdraw any degree or diploma conferred or granted by the University.

(3) The Vice Chancellor may, on the recommendation of the Syndicate, also remove any person from the membership of any authority or body of the University if he becomes of unsound mind or a deaf-mute or has applied to be adjudicated or has been adjudicated as insolvent.

(4) If a member of any authority or body of the University who is not an ex-officio member fails to attend three consecutive meetings of that authority or body, he shall cease to be a member of such authority or body and thereupon the Registrar shall intimate him that he has ceased to be such member:

Provided that such authority or body may, if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the failure of the member to attend the meetings, restore him to its memberships.

Admittedly the power u/s 46 has not been exercised and the circumstances u/s 46 are not existing in the case.

The Vice Chancellor has invoked the power u/s 11(11) of the Act. Section 11(11) of the Act reads thus:

If at any time, except when the Syndicate or the Academic Council is in session, the Vice Chancellor is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to take immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council, the Vice Chancellor may take such action as he deems fit, and shall, as soon as may be, report the action taken by him to the Syndicate or the Academic Council, as the case may be, for approval.

Thus, this power can be exercised only in an emergency when the Syndicate and academic council is not in session. Section 18 deals with the power of Syndicate and Section 24 deals with the power and duties of the academic council. Similarly, Statute 73 of the Cochin University First Statute deals with the power and duties of the Syndicate. Among the duties Section 18, Chapter XIII deals with suspension, discharge, dismissal and disciplinary action against teachers and other employees of the University and above the rank of Assistant Registrar. A power to suspend a member is not seen enumerated in Section 18 and in the Statute. As already stated, the only other provision is Section 46. Of course, the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 46 are not existing in the case. We asked the counsel for the University whether any bye-law or regulations have been framed by the Syndicate regarding the conduct of the meeting in the Syndicate and whether the Chairman has been given the power to suspend a member and we were told that no such Rule or Regulations has been framed. Further, the power u/s 11(11) is to be exercised only when an emergency arises. It is to be exercised sparingly and only when the proposal will not brook the delay till the Syndicate meets. Under Statute 75 the Syndicate shall ordinarily meet once in a month and as and when required for conducting the business of the University. Thus the Vice Chancellor could have convened the meeting of the Syndicate before he directed to issue Ext. P-4. There was a gap of 11 days from the meeting of the Syndicate on 8th February 1996 and 7 days from the alleged incident on 12th February 1996 before the emergency power was invoked. What are the facts leading to the emergency are not stated. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit as well as in the report of the Vice Chancellor to the Syndicate the reason stated is that if similar acts and conduct are repeated in the next Syndicate meeting it will perilously affect the business and decorum of the Syndicate and dignity of the office of the Vice Chancellor. In this context, it is pertinent to note, in the note of the Vice Chancellor dated 19th February 1996 there is no indication that the emergency power is exercised. The emergency power is mentioned only in the Registrar''s letter to the Petitioners following the direction of the Vice Chancellor. From his note it is very difficult to accept that the Vice Chancellor formed the requisite opinion that an emergency had arisen to exercise the power u/s 11(11). Here we respectfully agree with, the decision of the Delhi High Court in M.N. Gupta and Another Vs. University of Delhi and Others, .

Learned Counsel for the Vice Chancellor then submitted that if a member of the Syndicate obstructs the proceedings, there is an inherent power in the Syndicate to suspend that member.

Regarding the members of parliament in the Practice and Procedure of Parliament, 3rd Edn. by M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher in page 252, it is stated thus:

If at any stage, the Chair is of the opinion that the conduct of a member is grossly disorderly, the member may be directed to withdraw immediately from the House. A member, who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistent and willful obstruction of the business before the House, may be named by the Chair and later suspended from the service of the House on a motion moved by a member and adopted by the House. The purpose of ''expulsion'' is to rid the House of persons who are unfit for its membership.

In Shackleton on the law and Practice of Meetings at page 79 it is stated thus: "In the case of persistent disorder, the Chairman is empowered to adjourn the meeting; sometimes a short adjournment for, say, 15 minutes-has the desired effect".

The meeting on 8th February 1996 was adjourned sine die by the Vice Chancellor. It is pertinent to note that the names of the Petitioners did not figure in the minutes. The power of suspension was not invoked, instead the house was adjourned. We don''t think that in such circumstance, the Petitioners'' conduct in the Syndicate on 8th February 1996, could be again subjected to scrutiny by invoking the emergency power. Dr. Leelakrishnan was of the view that the standing committee u/s 31(2)(e) cannot be constituted for the purpose of selection of the Registrar. Prima facie it appears to be correct. The committee under the above section is for the selection of the non-teaching staff. Further, the Selection Committee u/s 31 is to be constituted by the Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Syndicate. On the other hand, regarding the appointment of Registrar, it is the duty of the Syndicate to prepare a panel of two names. The Syndicate can do itself or as per Statute 73 (XXV) to delegate to a committee of its own members. According to the Petitioners, no outsider should be included in the Selection Committee. Petitioners were bringing to the notice the illegality in such procedure. Of course, each member has got a right to express his view. It may not be to the liking of the Chairman. Often we find the views expressed in such dissents are subsequently adopted. We are referring to this only because in the minutes dated 8th February 1996 the views are stated as unjust demands.

Regarding the incidents on 12th February 1996 according to the Vice Chancellor, no Syndicate member has a right to approach him to convene a meeting of the Syndicate. We do not find any prohibition in the Act or in the Statute. Further according to us, they are the most competent persons to make a request for the convening of the Syndicate.

According to the Vice Chancellor, Sri Prasannakumar menacingly dashed towards him and threatened him with dire consequences if the meeting of the Syndicate is not convened immediately and used obscene and objectionable gestures. We perused the note of the Vice Chancellor. Reference to such conduct is absent in the note whereas it contained the letter to the Commissioner of Police. Prasannakumar has denied such a conduct by him. It is stated that no other person was present in the chamber of the Vice Chancellor. In such circumstances, such a unilateral imposition of punishment without any enquiry is illegal.

Now, we come to the approval of the action of the Vice Chancellor by the Syndicate. [We have already held that there was no circumstance existing for the Vice Chancellor to exercise the power u/s 11(11) and it was illegal. Thus the approval by the Syndicate cannot validate the same.] Further, here the procedure adopted by the Syndicate is opposed to the principles of natural justice. In the order of the Division Bench it was directed that the meeting would be held on 17th September 1996 and the Pro Vice Chancellor would preside over the same. That meeting did not take place due to lack of quorum. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor cancelled his leave and convened a meeting on 31st August 1996 and he presided over the meeting. We express our strong displeasure over the conduct of the Vice Chancellor in presiding over the meeting on that day contrary to assurance given to this Court. This itself vitiates the entire procedure. Here the person aggrieved is the Vice Chancellor. From the affidavit of Dr. Leelakrishnan, it is clear that the Vice Chancellor took an active part in the proceeding and he ordered him to leave the hall after he gave his explanation. We are of the view that the chairing of the deliberation by the second Respondent has caused prejudice against the impartial assessment of the charge against the Petitioners. Justice should not only be done, but meaningly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The first requirement of natural justice is that the Judge should be impartial and neutral and must be free from bias. He cannot act as a Judge of cause in which he himself has some interest either pecuniary or otherwise as it affords the strongest proof against neutrality. It is true that the Vice Chancellor did not vote. But his influence was there by his personally chairing the deliberation. In this context we refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, "But then the very fact that he was a member of the selection board must have had its own impact on the decision of the selection board". Similarly in Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Another, the Supreme Court held that the Chairman of the tribunal was a member of the review committee while making recommendations against the Appellant for his premature retirement. The Supreme Court opined that the principles of natural justice, fair play and judicial discipline request that he should have abstained from hearing of the Appellant''s case. Further, the procedure adopted by the Syndicate is far from satisfactory. There was no direct evidence before the Syndicate as to what took place in the chamber of the Vice chancellor. A committee should have been constituted to enquire into the matter and the findings of the committee should have been placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate failed to not that they are depriving a very valuable right of the Petitioners. A mere blind allegiance to the version of the Vice Chancellor is not what is expected from the Syndicate. If the action of the Syndicate is approved, it will boomerang on them because a member can be prevented from attending the meeting of the Syndicate by a simple majority of the Syndicate. We are pained at the unfortunate incidents in the University. Academicians should not be allergic to tolerance.

In the result, the Original Petitions are allowed and the Writ Appeals are dismissed. The action of the Vice Chancellor in preventing the Petitioners from attending the meeting of the Syndicate and other bodies as evidenced by Exts. P-2 and P-4 and the approval of the action of the Syndicate as evidenced by the minutes dated 31st August 1996 are hereby quashed.