Chattisgarh High Court
Sonal Tiwari vs D.P. Vipra College on 27 March, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2026:CGHC:14672
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for Order On : 29.01.2026
Order Delivered On : 27/03/2026
Order Uploaded On : 27/03/2026
WPS No. 5399 of 2024
1 - Sonal Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap Tiwari, Aged About 53 Years R/o
C-37, Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.).
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - D.P. Vipra College Through Its Principal, D.P. Vipra College, Old High
Court Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Anju Shukla W/o Shri Pramod Shukla, Aged About 58 Years
Principal, D.P. Vipra College, Old High Court Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)
3 - Atal Vihari Bajpayee University, Bilaspur, A Body Constituted Under The
Relevant Provisions Of The Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhimiyam, 1973
Through Its Registrar, Old High Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)/Defendants
(Cause title is taken from CIS) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with BALRAM PRASAD Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate DEWANGAN For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate.
Digitally signedby BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Order 2
1. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner was employee of respondent No.1. He was appointed and working as Assistant Professor (Commerce). Respondent No.1/College is run and managed by Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner while in service, a complaint was made against him by respondent No.2, who was working at that time as Principal of respondent No.1-College. On complaint made by respondent No.2, a meeting of Governing Body was convened on 03.12.2018 and pursuant to the decision taken therein, petitioner was suspended and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Representatives of respondent No.3-University-cum-members of Governing Body have made complaint on 12.12.2008 before Kulpati of respondent No.3- University stating therein that there was violation of statutory rules in passing an order of suspension against petitioner. Three members Committee was constituted by Kulpati of respondent No.3-University and intimated to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.04.2019 and further observed to maintain status-quo with respect to services of petitioner till final outcome of enquiry. On 14.05.2019 Governing Body took decision to terminate services of petitioner with immediate effect and letter in this regard was issued on 15.05.2019 by respondent No.1 (Incharge - Principal). Petitioner submitted representation before Kulpati of respondent No.3-University against letter of termination dated 15.05.2019 pleading therein that order of termination is in serious violation of mandatory provisions. Respondent No.3-University on 03.10.2019 issued letter to respondent No.1-College directing to maintain status-quo with respect to the services of petitioner. Against letter dated 03.10.2019, respondent No.1- College and respondent 3 No.2/complainant has filed writ petition bearing WPS No.10347 of 2019, which was partly allowed and disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2022 directing University to constitute Tribunal for deciding the appeal of respondent No.2 therein (petitioner herein). Against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in WPS No.10347 of 2019, petitioner herein has filed Writ Appeal No.29 of 2023 and the said order was also assailed by the College and complainant i.e. petitioners in WPS No.10347 of 2019 by filing Writ Appeal No.39 of 2023 as also by University in Writ Appeal No.203 of 2023. All writ appeals were heard and disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2023 observing that there is no provision for constitution of such Tribunal and being so direction issued by learned Single Judge to be not in accordance with Chhattisgarh Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (In short "the Adhiniyam, 1973"). The writ appeal filed by Sonal Tiwari/appellant therein and (petitioner herein) and appeal filed by University were allowed, however, the writ appeal filed by College and complainant i.e. W.A. 39 of 2023 was dismissed and remitted back the case for its decision before the learned Single Judge.
2. When Writ Petition No.10347 of 2019 was taken up for hearing after remand, petitioner therein i.e. College and complainant (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) have filed an application for withdrawal of writ petition for the reasons mentioned that during the pendency of that writ petition, petitioner therein i.e. College was given "autonomous status". Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.04.2024. When petitioner herein was not reinstated in service 4 even after order/letter of University, this writ petition was filed seeking following relief (s) :-
"10.1 To call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court;
10.2 To issue appropriate writ/direction/order to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor at Respondent College;
10.3 To issue appropriate writ/direction/order to give salary to the petitioner from 14.05.2019, 10.4 To issue appropriate writ/direction/order to give all the consequential benefits with back wages from 14.05.2019, 10.5 Any other relief (s)/ Order (s)/ direction (s) which may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
10.6 Cost of the petition."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Commerce) by respondent No.1- College and was continuously worked till the order of suspension was passed on 03.12.2018. Order of suspension of petitioner was dehors the provisions of law applicable to service of petitioner. Not only petitioner herein but the representatives of University forming part of Governing Body had intimated this fact to the Kulpati of respondent No.3-University, with which college is affiliated and accordingly respondent No.3 had issued a letter to respondent No.1-College to maintain status-quo, till the report is submitted by three member Committee constituted by it. Respondent No.2 even thereafter based on the enquiry report, had issued an order of termination vide letter dated 15.05.2019, which is based on the resolution of Governing Body dated 14.05.2019. He submits that letter of termination (Annexure P-5) 5 based on the resolution dated 14.05.2019 of the Governing Body, is in contravention of the Clause 31.3 of the College Code under Statute No.28. He submits that according to proviso under Clause 31.3 of the College Code, teachers of the College cannot remove or dismiss from service unless it is approved by the Executive Council. Prior to issuance of order of termination, no approval was obtained from the Executive Council, therefore, proceedings Annexure P-5 dated 14.05.2019 and order dated 15.05.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also submits that provision under Clause 31.3 of the College Code for issuance of an order and prior approval of Executive Council before the order of removal/termination, came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.33 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No.38 of 2024, wherein it is held that the decision of termination/removal of appellant therein cannot be given effect to unless it is approved by the Executive Council.
4. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 would vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that College is registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is unaided college, therefore, writ petition would not lie. He also contended that, writ petition in-fact is filed for non-compliance of the order issued by respondent No.3-University, therefore, writ petition would not lie for the execution of the order of University. Action if any is to be taken for non- compliance of order of University can be taken only by the University of de-affiliating. It is next contended that petitioner has been kept in service by way of an agreement, therefore, also writ petition would not 6 lie if any clauses of agreement has been violated. He submits that earlier the College was governed with the provision under the College Code under the Statute No.28 and it provides for 'form of agreement' of service for teachers and accordingly the agreement was executed with petitioner according to the terms and conditions as provided under the form of agreement of service of teachers, forming part of Appendix of College Code. It is further contention of learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 that earlier writ petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 against the order/direction issued by the University dated 03.10.2019 was withdrawn vide order dated 22.04.2024 as respondent No.1-College has been granted autonomous status by University Grants Commission. After getting the autonomous status, respondent No.1 has prepared its own College Code under the heading of D.P. Vipra College Autonomous Regulations, 2024 and in Para 1.3 of the said Code, it is mentioned that the said regulations is effected from 20th March, 2024 and approved by the Governing Body of the D.P. Vipra College, Bilaspur. Under the aforementioned Regulations, 2024, it is for the Governing Body of respondent No.1-College to take decision with respect to the service of employees by the Governing Body and Governing Body has taken decision to terminate the services of petitioner. If petitioner is aggrieved, then petitioner is having remedy of appeal under the Regulations under 2024 before the Foundation Society under Clause 34 (3) of the Regulations, 2024. Petition is without any merit and it is to be dismissed. He also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Army Welfare Education Society, New 7 Delhi Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors., reported in (2024) 16 SCC
598.
5. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3-University would submit that according to the College Code under Statute-28, decision for removal of service of teachers by Governing Body cannot be given effect to without approval by the Executive Council. The order of termination has not been approved by the Executive Council, therefore, order was issued on 03.10.2019 for maintaining status-quo with respect to service of petitioner. Order of termination will not be effective till it is approved by the Executive Council. In its letter dated 18.11.2019, University - respondent No.3 has made amendment to the word "suspension" as mentioned therein to "termination of service".
6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has also claimed for back wages since the date of order of termination of service of petitioner vide decision taken by Governing Body dated 14.05.2019 and letter of intimation dated 15.05.2019 petitioner was out of service for no fault of his own, therefore, respondent No.1 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, in Civil Appeal No.13834 of 2024, decided on 14th of February, 2025. Decision in case of Allahabad Bank & Ors. Vs. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.
8
8. The undisputed facts as is reflecting from pleadings made by respective parties, is that, petitioner was engaged by respondent No.1- College as Assistant Professor (Commerce). On the date of engagement of petitioner in service by respondent No.1-College and order of termination, respondent No.1-College as also services of petitioner was governed with College Code under Statute -28, under the Adhiniyam, 1973. Petitioner was put under suspension pursuant to the resolution passed by the Governing Body vide resolution dated 04.12.2018. Copy of proceedings of Governing Body dated 04.12.2018 is filed as Annexure P-1. From description of the members of the Governing Body as is reflecting from Annexure P-1, it is apparent that apart from President, Secretary, there are two members representatives University-respondent No.3 with which respondent No.1-College was affiliated. Petitioner is also one of the members of the Governing Body being the representative of teachers. Annexure P- 2 is letter written by Dr. I.P. Gupta, Principal, Government Veerangala Avanti Bai Lodhi Mahavidyalaya, Pathariya, District - Mungeli -cum- representative of University and Dr. Smt. Prateeksha Mairal, Principal, Government Dr. Indrajeet Singh Mahavidyalaya, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa - cum - representative of University and member of Governing Body. In the letter they have pleaded with respect to Agenda No.1 and 2, decision was taken for suspension of professor, however, no enquiry was conducted by the members of the College on the charges levelled against petitioner, principal has not submitted any documents with regard to any enquiry on the complaint. Letter/complaint made against Sonal Tiwari (petitioner) was not given to him and they have mentioned that they are not in agreement with 9 the decision taken by Governing Body of suspension of Sonal Tiwari (petitioner).
9. University wrote letter to the College on 29.01.2019 calling explanation from College on the letter written by two representatives of the University and the members of the Governing Body. Thereafter, the respondent No.3-University had constituted three members Committee and further vide letter dated 25.04.2019 had directed the College to maintain status-quo in case of Sonal Tiwari, till the report of three member enquiry Committee is received. The Committee was constituted vide notification dated 08.08.2019. Respondent No.1- College has convened the meeting of the Governing Body on 26.04.2019. Members of the Governing Body as mentioned in the proceedings of the meeting is 8, in which five members participated in the meeting and three members, two of the representative of the University and one of the representative of the teachers did not sign the proceedings. In that meeting, it is recorded that Governing Body is not in agreement with direction issued in the letter dated 25.04.2019 of the respondent No.3-University, however, giving respect to the letter of University they will maintain status-quo with respect to the case of Sonal Tiwari (petitioner) and further taken a decision to write objection letter to the University on the constitution of the Committee. The Governing Body also directed the Principal of the College to maintain status-quo till report of enquiry is received and any direction or guidance is received from respondent No.3/University on enquiry report.
10
10. From the aforementioned proceedings of the respondent No.1-College and respondent No.3-University, it is appearing that after decision of Governing Body for suspension of petitioner and to initiate enquiry against him, letter was written by University to maintain status-quo with respect to petitioner vide letter dated 25.04.2019 and thereafter in the meeting of the Governing Body of respondent No.1-College, decision was taken to maintain status-quo with respect to case of petitioner meaning thereby, the decision of Governing Body was not to proceed with or to conduct any enquiry against petitioner. Document, which is placed along with writ petition at Page No.22, notification dated 08.08.2019 of the respondent No.3-University would show that Committee for enquring into the case of Sonal Tiwari was constituted and notified on 08.08.2019, but before that, Governing Body of respondent No.1- College in its meeting dated 14.05.2019 has taken decision to terminate services of petitioner with immediate effect.
11. In the said meeting also, signatures of the representatives of University and representative of teachers is not available. The decision of termination of services were intimated to petitioner on 15.05.2019. Respondent No.3-University after getting knowledge about passing of order of termination, even after receipt of letter dated 25.04.2019 of University directing respondent-College to maintain status-quo with respect to case of petitioner, which was initially accepted but have willfully violated the same and further considering that decision of termination can be taken only after approval of Executive Council as provide under Clause 31.3 of the College Code under Statute -28, has clearly ordered vide letter dated 03.10.2019 that decision of 11 termination will not remain in force till it is approved by the Executive Council. Realizing typographical error crept in letter dated 03.10.2019, letter of amendment was issued on 18.11.2019 mentioning that word "suspension" in the last two lines of letter be read as "termination of service".
12. Respondent No.1-College aggrieved with letter and decision of respondent No.3-University has filed writ petition bearing WPS No.10347 of 2019, which was initially allowed in favour of petitioners with a direction to respondent No.2 therein (employee/Professor) to submit an appeal before the Tribunal to be constituted by the University and the decision be taken by the Tribunal so constituted. Order passed in Writ Petition (S) No.10347 of 2019 dated 30.11.2022 was challenged in writ appeal filed by respondent No.2 therein (petitioner herein) in W.A. No.29 of 2023. Petitioner college and complainant have also challenged the order dated 30.11.2022 in WPS No.10347 of 2019 by filing Writ Appeal No.39 of 2023. Writ Appeal No.203/2023 was also filed by University, against the said order. Writ appeal filed by petitioner -College and complainant came to be dismissed and the writ appeals filed by University and employee/respondent in writ petition, came to be allowed and the case was remitted back to learned Single Judge to pass an order in accordance with law. Writ petition was later on withdrawn vide order dated 22.04.2024 by filing an application for withdrawal of writ petition. The effect of withdrawal of writ petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 would show that the order of termination of service is not in force. 12
13. Even if considering the fact that petitioners (therein) i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 (herein) i.e. College and complainant has filed an application for withdrawal of writ petition and respondent No.1- College has been granted autonomous status then also the provision which are effective and governing the field on the date of decision of the Governing Body for suspension and thereafter termination of services of petitioner vide its meeting dated 14.05.2019 will be the provisions of the College Code with which service of teachers are being governed and respondent No.1-College is regulated i.e. College Code framed under Statute -28 of the Adhiniyam, 1973.
14. Submission of learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 that as during pendency of writ petition, respondent No.1-College has been granted autonomous status, therefore, even on the date of meeting dated 14.05.2019 and the intimation letter of termination of services of petitioner it will not be governed with College Code, is not sustainable. The autonomous status of petitioner will have its prospective effect i.e. from the date of grant of such status and its notification in the official gazette. Document which is enclosed along with covering memo would show that approval was granted by respondent No.3-University for granting autonomous status is on 08.09.2025 and the notification would be of subsequent date of approval dated 08.09.2025. Hence, in the facts of the case, the procedure to be followed by respondent No.1 as autonomous status college and applicability of the Regulations 2024 as formulated will come to an effect from the date of notification of autonomous status of respondent No.1-College.
13
15. Division Bench of this Court while considering the issue in Writ Appeal No.33 of 2024 and W.A. 38 of 2024 filed by employees of the respondent No.1-College has considered as under :-
"24.From perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Statute 28, it transpires that the decision of removal / termination of the appellants cannot be given effect to unless it is approved by the Executive Council. In the present case, the impugned order of termination has never been placed before the Executive Council of the University and therefore, in view of the said statutory bar, the proposal of removal can not be given effect to. So far as the provision of appeal as prescribed under Section 32(3)(i) of the Statute 28 is concerned, the language is very clear that appeal would lie to the Tribunal against the order of Governing Body and not the proposal or resolution. The proposal or resolution of the Governing Body can be converted into 'order' only after its approval of the Executive Council of the University. The mandate of Section 31(3) of the Statute 28 is very specific that the proposal/decision of Governing Body shall not be given effect to without its approval by the Executive Council and thus, the decision of the Governing Body would turn into the order only after its approval of the Executive Council. This provision further confirm that the stage of appeal would only come after the decision of the Executive Council over the resolution/proposal of the Governing Body. The employee can not prefer an appeal directly to the Tribunal against the decision of Governing Body without its approval by the Executive Council since it would be considered as premature appeal.
25.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, further considering the provisions contained in Section 31(3) of the Statute 28, 14 material available on record and perusing the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions as not maintainable, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of termination / removal of the appellants cannot be given effect to unless it is approved by the Executive Council and in the case in hand, the decision of removal / termination has never been placed before the Executive Council of the University and in view of the statutory bar, the proposal of removal can not be given effect to and the observation made by the learned Single Judge regarding availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 32 of the Statute 28 is apparently unjust and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Statute 28 in its proper perspective. It ought to have been considered that Section 32 has to be read along with the provisions contained in Section 31(3) of Statute 28 and the stage of appeal would only come after the decision of the Executive Council over the resolution/proposal of the Governing Body. The employee can not prefer an appeal directly to the Tribunal against the decision of the Governing Body without its approval by the Executive Council since it would be considered as premature appeal."
16. From the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Division Bench of this Court on the subject, the applicability of Clause 31.3 of the College Code under the Statute -28 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, has been settled. Admittedly in the case at hand, university has directed respondents authorities to maintain status-quo with regard to service of petitioner after his suspension. Direction issued by University was accepted by respondent No.1-College in its meeting of Governing Body dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure P-4) and has taken a decision not 15 to proceed with enquiry against petitioner. Subsequently, in its meeting dated 14.05.2019 considering that in the enquiry report, charges levelled against petitioner has been found proved, decision was taken to terminate services of petitioner with immediate effect and have terminated the services of petitioner. Petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 15.05.2019.
17. Proviso to Clause 31.3 of College Code clearly provides that no proposal to reduce in rank or pay of a teacher confirmed in service of the college or to remove or dismiss him/her from service or to retire him or her compulsory shall be deemed to have been passed by the Governing Body unless it is supported by majority of two-third of the members present at the meeting of the Governing Body in which it comes up for consideration and where a decision is duly taken it shall not be given effect to unless it is approved by the Executive Council.
18. Requirement under Clause 31.3 of the College Code, is that decision duly taken for termination of service or any other penalty as mentioned therein shall not be given effect to unless it is approved by the Executive Council.
19. It is a case that proposal of termination of services of Governing Body is not placed for approval before Executive Council, therefore, according to Clause 31.3 of the College Code, termination of service of petitioner vide resolution dated 14.05.2019 and intimating the same to petitioner on 15.05.2019 was in contravention of the provision under the College Code. University has already written letter on 03.10.2019 read with letter dated 18.11.2019 that order of termination shall not remain in effect till it is approved by the Executive Council. As on date, 16 letter of University is in force because the Writ Petition (S) No. 10347 of 2019 filed challenging the letter of the University has been withdrawn by respondents No.1 and 2.
20. Petitioner has submitted income tax return for the year 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 to submit that petitioner is not receiving any income from salary or any business, therefore, entitled for all benefit which he was entitled for prior to the order dated 15.05.2019 and decision of Governing Body dated 14.05.2019.
21. Considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 , decision in case of Avtar Bhushan (supra) and in case of Mahadeo Krishna Naik (supra), petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefits.
22. So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 with regard to maintainability of writ petition stating that there is service dispute between petitioner and respondent No.1-College, which is private unaided college run and managed by Society, petitioner herein has not challenged any order or decision of respondent No.1-College, but has filed this writ petition for compliance of the directives of the University, therefore, the said submission of learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable.
23. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated here-in-above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram