Allahabad High Court
Prashant Agarwal vs State Of U.P.And 6 Ors. on 22 December, 2023
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 09.11.2023
Delivered on 22.12.2023
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242979
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30418 of 2013
Petitioner :- Prashant Agarwal
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 6 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Khanna,Avneesh Tripathi,Avnish Tripathi,Ayub Khan,Krishan Pahal,Prateek Rai,Rahul Chaudhary
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K.Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for respondent no. 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 and Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and 3.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Kisan Degree College is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University and the College is governed by the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the First Statutes and by Government orders. The college is an aided institution.
3. Elections for the Committee of Management were held on 16.02.2003. The elections were approved by the Vice Chancellor on 10.04.2003. Subsequently, on a complaint about the elections, the Vice Chancellor appointed a five member Enquiry Committee. On the submission of its report, the Vice Chancellor, by order dated 05.07.2003, cancelled the order of approval dated 10.04.2003 and directed the fresh elections be held under the supervision of the Assistant Registrar of Firms Societies and Chits.
4. The order of cancellation of approval dated 10.04.2003 has been put under challenge by way of institution of a writ petition before this Court in shape of W.P 29641 of 2003, wherein, by an interim order dated 14.07.2003 this Court placed the order of the Vice Chancellor in abeyance and directed that till the writ petition was decided, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall run and manage the affairs of the institution. Eventually, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court on dated 16.02.2005 by directing that the District Magistrate, who was managing the affairs of the Institution, shall continue to do so until fresh elections to the Committee of Management are held.
5. Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics on 29.01.1990 on an ad-hoc basis and his services were regularised on 20.06.1992. On 25.06.2005, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad authorised the then Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar to perform the duties of an Administrator of the College. On 12.04.2006, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending a disciplinary enquiry. A charge sheet dated 05.05.2006 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved and submitted a report to the Administrator. After receipt of the Enquiry Report, the Administrator, by an order dated 29.11.2006, recommended the termination of the petitioner and forwarded the records to the Vice Chancellor of the University for approval. Putting petitioner in suspension, charge sheet, enquiry officer and thereafter recommendation of termination all were made by Deputy Collector Garh Mukteshwar under the delegated power of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The charge-sheet, enquiry report along with other documents were filed along with counter-affidavit in Writ petition no. 21765 of 2007 (Prashant Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by the petitioner for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner to pay his regular monthly salary as also to pay his arrears of salary.
6. Meanwhile, on 21.09.2007, the State Government exercised powers under Section 58(2) of the Act and superseded the Management of the College. The District Magistrate was appointed as an Authorised Controller for an initial period of six months.
7. The petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the same was disposed of on 23.07.2008 by directing that the matter with regard to the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of by the Vice Chancellor of the University expeditiously after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to the Committee of Management. A review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.04.2012. The Vice Chancellor passed an order of approval for terminating the services of the petitioner on 08.03.2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner instituted Writ A no. 30418 of 2013.
8. This Court by its judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 came to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry which was conducted by the Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar was illegal and was without jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order of the Vice Chancellor and consequential benefits were granted to the petitioner. The petitioner instituted contempt proceedings, being Contempt Application (C) no. 2323 of 2019. After the contempt proceedings were disposed of by this Court on 19.04.2019 with appropriate directions for compliance, the petitioner was reinstated in service in view of the orders of this Court. The review application before the High Court was thereafter dismissed on 19.12.2019 preferred by respondents.
9. Two Special Leave Petitions have been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one by the State of Uttar Pradesh and another by the Committee of Management and both the Special Leave Petitions were decided vide judgment dated 16.08.2021 by way of remanded the proceedings back to this Court for a fresh decision and all the rights and contentions of the parties in the challenges which may be raised by the petitioner to the validity of the disciplinary enquiry are accordingly kept open, to facilitate a fresh decision, orders of this Court dated 24.04.2018 and 19.12.2019 were set aside and the instant writ petition restored to the file of this Court for fresh consideration.
10. While assailing the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted several other grounds inter alia precisely confined his challenge on the ground that the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner under the Act is the Committee of Management of the degree college. However, during the relevant period the Committee of Management stood superseded with the District Magistrate functioning as the management of the institution, firstly under orders of this Court and thereafter under order passed by the State Government. However, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have been undertaken by the Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar who had not been appointed as an Administrator either by the High Court or the State Government and on such account itself the entire proceedings are without authority of law and liable to be quashed.
11. The detailed submissions in respect of the same were further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the District Magistrate was permitted to run and manage the affairs of the Institution vide order dated 14.07.2003 passed in Writ Petition no. 29641 of 2003 (Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College, Simbhawalii, District Ghaziabad Vs. Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut) and the same has been continued till the disposal of the said writ petition which was decided vide judgment dated 16.02.2005, the District Magistrate continued as Manager of the institution through judgment dated 16.02.2005 and the State Government appointed the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad as Authorised Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act vide Government order dated 21.09.2007 and the same was extended from time to time.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted the order dated 22.06.2009 through which District Magistrate appointed Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Ghaziabad as Authorised Controller and thereafter vide order dated 28.08.2010 Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Ghaziabad appointed Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar as Authorised Controller and as such the claim of the petitioner that it is the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad who had been appointed as Administrator/Authorised Controller firstly, by the orders of this Court and thereafter by orders of the State Government. Neither under the order of this Court nor order of the State Government, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad stood authorised to sub-delegate his power of management to any other subordinate officer and as such the action of the District Magistrate in abdicatiing powers in favour of Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar was wholly unauthorised and as such all disciplinary orders against the petitioner including the order of suspension, institution of departmental enquiry, issuance of departmental charge-sheet, appointment of Enquiry Officer as also order proposing termination are the orders passed by Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar. On such account the entire proceedings against the petitioner are without authority and liable to be quashed. It is on this reasoning that the Division Bench by the judgment dated 24.03.2018 had quashed the order of Vice Chancellor and allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner with all consequential benefits. In passing the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court referred to order of State Government appointing the District Magistrate as an Authorised Controller. However, it is also submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that on facts Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 16.08.2021 found that the orders pertaining to disciplinary action against the petitioner had been passed prior to the appointment of the Authorised Controller by the State Government and on account of such factual discrepancy remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by this Court.
13. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court which are as under :
1. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Singh reported in 2010 (2) SCC 772.
2. Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2014 (4) ALJ 440.
3. Murlidhar Rajput vs. State of U.P. reported in 2018 SCC Online ALL5331
4. Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer reported in 1985(3) SCC 378
5. Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ A no. 26963 of 2018
14. Per contra, Sri A.K.Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 although submitted the same factual matrix of the matter as submitted by learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and there was hardly any dispute in the facts of the case, so far as regarding merit of the matter is concerned four propositions involved in the matter has been submitted by Sri A.K.Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel which are as under :
"PROPOSITIONS INVOLVED:
(a) Effect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4818 of 2021 State of U.P. and another Vs. Prashant Agarwal and others decided on 16.08.2021.
(b) Whether the enquiry proceedings were held in accordance with law?
(c) Whether the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University is a speaking order and takes into consideration the matter in issue as well as compliance with the principles of natural justice?
(d) Whether a case of reinstatement and consequential relief is made out in favour of the petitioner?
(a) Effect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeat No. 4818 of 2021 State of U.P. and another Vs. Prashant Agarwal and others decided on 16.08.2021.
It is evident from the date chart that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad was merely appointed as an Administrator and not an Authorized Controller by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 29641 of 2003 vide interim order dated 14.07.2003 and was permitted to continue vide order of 16.02.2005. The entire enquiry proceedings were concluded on 29.11.2006 ex-parte and the records were forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of the University for approval. The Authorized Controller (District Magistrate Ghaziabad) was appointed by the State Government only on 21.09.2007. Specific arguments were raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding status and difference of the District Magistrate as Administrator and District Magistrate as Authorized Controller. In this regard it will be necessary to refer to Paragraph-13, 14 and following extract of Paragraph 16 and Paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"13. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi has urged that the basis of the judgment of the High Court is that an Authorized Controller appointed under Section 58(2) of the Act had no power to further delegate its functions. However, the submission is that the disciplinary proceedings has taken place much prior to the erder dated 21 September 2007 appointing an Authorized Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act. It has been urged that since the Collector had been appointed to run the institution pending the writ proceedings by the High Court, there was no jurisdictional error in the Collector appointing the Deputy Collector to carry on the day to day activities.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, submitted that the enquiry against the first respondent was held ex pate and the notice of the enquiry was not received by him. That apart, it has been urged that the Collector had been appointed by the order of the High Court, and it was not open to him to nominate the Deputy Collector to exercise the functions which had been entrusted to him by the High Court.
16. ...........The narration of facts indicates that the High Court had, in the course of the writ proceedings challenging the order of the Vice Chancellor recalling the approval granted to the elections, ordered on 14 July, 2003; as an interim measure; that till the writ petition is decided the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall run and manage the affairs of the institution. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 16 February, 2005 by continuing interim arrangement and by directing that the District Magistrate shall continue to do so until fresh elections are held.
17. The disciplinary enquiry was concluded much prior to the appointment of the Collector as an Authorized Controller under Section 58(2) of the act. After the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the record was forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for approval. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption. The basis on which the disciplinary proceedings have been held to be without jurisdiction flawed.
The issue therefore, stands concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is binding inter parties. The petitioner cannot re-agitate the issue in the instant writ petition and argue that the Deputy Collector had no authority to remain as Administrator of the College and it was only the Collector who could have remained Administrator of the College and there is jurisdictional error in initiation of the disciplinary action against the petitioner. A charge sheet was issued to him by the Deputy Collector in the capacity of the Administrator of the College which delegation was permissible by the Collector. The petitioner having lost on the said issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be permitted to again rake up the said issue and if the petitioner wants to argue he may have to file a review seeking clarification of the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Hon'ble Court will decide issue other than the jurisdictional issues inasmuch as the matter has been remitted for consideration of issue other than jurisdictional issue.
There is yet another aspect of the matter. The District Magistrate was appointed as an Administrator by this Hon'ble Court not under any statutory power. The District Magistrate always had the authority to delegate power of Administrator to a Deputy Collector as the definition of the Collector includes Deputy Collector. For ready reference the provision of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 clarifying the term 'Collector' is quoted herein below:
"14-A. Appointment, power and duties of Additional Collector:
(4) This Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under sub- section (3), as if he were the Collector of the district.
4. (9). "Collector" shall mean the chief officer in charge of the Revenue administration of a district and shall include a Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent, Dehra Dun;
4. (12-A). "District Magistrate shall mean a person appointed as such under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall include the Deputy Commissioner of a District;
(b) Whether the enquiry proceedings were held in accordance with law?
It is an admitted position on record that the petitioner who was a Lecturer did not receive the charge sheet which was served to him personally, by post, by affixing it at his local residence and also by publication in the newspaper. The registered cover returned with a remark that he has refused to receive registered cover. It is not correct on the part of the petitioner to submit that the date, time and place of enquiry
proceedings were not published. As per the newspaper publication filed by the petitioner, (having circulation in Hapur and Lucknow) (from Page 229 to 235 of the paper book) it is evident that date fixed was 20.05.2006, time fixed was 11AM and place was office at the Old Building of Kisan Degree College, Sambhawali. Again publication was made fixing 30.05.2006 as the petitioner had not appeared on 20.05.2006. This publication has already been annexed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition by the petitioner. The petitioner was fully aware of the entire proceedings that were undertaken against him and was fully aware of the charges that were leveled against him. Since the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings in spite of due opportunity the Presenting Officer namely Dr. Hub Lal Singh presented all the documents relating to the charges and suspension against the petitioner and upon due presentation of such documents and on due examination of each document in detail each of the five (5) charges were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner. Thus the Rules and procedures were followed as the documentary evidence was duly presented and there was a Presenting Officer who identified the documents that were taken note of by the Enquiry Officer where after the misconduct was found established.
It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that Rules of evidence are not applicable. When there is some material that is available against the petitioner then on the basis of such material it can be said that the charge stands established against the petitioner. In the representation that was submitted by the petitioner the petitioner has given explanation of different dates of not signing the attendance register placing blame upon the management that the attendance register was not made available to him and there were some difference between the petitioner and the Principal of the College. However, with respect to specific dates that have been mentioned in the charge sheet the petitioner has not given any explanation in his representation meaning thereby that the petitioner accepted the said charges. Under the circumstances the petitioner admits the misconduct and there can be no hyper technical approach to be adopted where there is an admitted position available on record
establishing the fact that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and under such circumstances power of judicial review cannot be exercised to favour such a person particularly who is holding post of a Lecturer in an educational institution.
(c) Whether the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University is an speaking order and takes into consideration the matter in issue and following principles of natural justice?
The order that has been passed by the Vice Chancellor is dated 08.03.2013 which approves the order of termination passed by the College in question. The said order takes into consideration the manner in which the service was sought to be affected upon the petitioner, the entire minutes of the enquiry proceedings and the conduct of the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner has been noticed at Page 225 but the petitioner out of those written submissions, has pressed only certain issue, that form part of the discussion. The petitioner before the Vice Chancellor has raised jurisdictional issue upon which finding was returned by the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner also pressed upon the fact that he was not given notice of disciplinary action against him which was also negated by the Vice Chancellor. Since the petitioner in none of his representations could allege that the charges that were framed against him were wrong or could refute any of the charges by any material in his representation and also the petitioner could not refute any of the dates mentioned in any of the charges but was refuting other dates that were irrelevant, the Vice Chancellor rightly recorded a finding to the effect that it is undisputed that the charges leveled against the petitioner remain undisputed and are based upon material and evidence available on record. Moreover, the Vice Chancellor has gone through the entire record and after looking into the entire record has finally recorded conclusion to the effect that all the charges that have been leveled against the petitioner can be held to be proved and the petitioner is guilty of statute no. 17.03(182), 17.04(a), 17.04(b), 17.04(c) and 17.04(e) of the Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut.
Even otherwise, the order of the Vice Chancellor is an order of affirmation and an order of affirmation does not require detailed reasoning to be recorded. Reasons stands already recorded in the order of termination and the representation was decided on the basis of what was stated and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order of the Vice Chancellor does not suffer from any infirmity.
(d) Whether a case of reinstatement and consequential relief is made out in favour of the petitioner?
The reinstatement has been done only on account of the fact that the writ petition was allowed and the contempt petition was filed by the petitioner even though Special Leave Petition was pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is evident from the record that the petitioner has not worked in the institution since 2006. The petitioner will not be entitled for reinstatement or for a consequential relief as nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and which have been found duly established and proved by the procedure known to law. The decision making process does not suffer from any infirmity. The reinstatement that has been done is only subject to the outcome of the instant writ petition as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and such reinstatement is liable to be set aside as public money and state exchequer cannot be drained for such unscrupulous person. As on the date of the reinstatement the petitioner was claiming an amount of Rs. 85,63,169/-. Any reinstatement will be perpetuating an illegality and will result in miscarriage of justice. It is a settled principle of law that rules and procedures are merely handmade of justice. Once the petitioner does not dispute the date for which he was charged and also admits his personal feud, he is not a fit person to be retained in service who has not been working since 2006 for almost two decades. Neither reinstatement nor consequential benefits can be granted to the petitioner. The relevant extract of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court between the parties, in this regard is quoted herein below for ready reference:
"20. The first respondent has been reinstated in pursuance of the contempt proceedings. The reinstatement of the first respondent shall abide by the final result of the writ petition."
15. For substantiating the stand taken up by learned counsel for respondent no. 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 he relied upon the following case laws:
1.
2013(1) SCC
Ratangiri Gas and Power Private Limited vs. RDS Projects Limited and others.
Paragraphs: 24, 25, 26, 26.1, 26.2 and 27
2.
2005 SCC
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. S.G. Paragraph:24
3.
AIR 2020 SC
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir
Paragraphs: 28 to 38
16. Sri Dr. Aveneesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 also accepted the facts of the case but at the same time emphasis has been made over service of enquiry report and charge-sheet upon the petitioner which has been initially denied by the petitioner at the time of challenging the entire disciplinary proceedings conducted by Authorised Controller along with other grounds that there was hardly any service of enquiry report as well as charge-sheet upon petitioner. While filing the written submission, Sri Dr. Aveneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 confined his submission only to the extent of facts mentioned above and in support of the same he relied upon judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court:
1. Judgment dated 28.11.1988 passed in case of Ms/. Madan and Co., Appellant Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand reported 1989 0 AIR(SC) 630 and,
2. Judgment dated 15.01.1996 passed in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Hiralal & ors. Reported in 1996 (1) Supreme 753.
17. After having the arguments raised by learned counsels for contesting parties and giving full regards to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal nos. 4816-4817 and 4818 of 2021 vide order dated 16.08.2021, para 17 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted hereinbelow:
"17. The disciplinary enquiry was concluded much prior to the appointment of the Collector as an Authorised Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act. After the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the record was forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption. The basis on which the disciplinary proceedings have been held to be without jurisdiction is flawed."
18. The matter before this Court under the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be reconsidered afresh and basis of the same is mentioned under para 17 which is quoted above.
19. Analysis with regard to para 17 as made by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has been submitted through written arguments that judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal nos. 4816-4817 & 4818 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Prashant Agarwal and others) whereby the judgment of the High Court dated 24.04.2018 and 19.12.2019 were set aside and Writ A no. 30418 of 2013 was restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration taking into account all the fact that petitioner had already been reinstated, it was directed that such reinstatement would abide by final result of the writ petition and the question of arrears of salary would also dependant upon the ultimate outcome of the writ petition and final direction that may be issued by this Court was on account of such factual discrepancy remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by the High Court.
20. Learned senior counsel also submitted that on facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 16.08.2021 found that the order pertaining to the disciplinary enquiry which concluded much prior to the appointment of the Collector as an Authorised Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act, this factual anaology has been drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the Government order dated 21.09.2007 but the stay order dated 14.07.2003 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court has not been taken into consideration through which the District Magistrate has already been directed under the judicial orders to perform the duty of Manager of the Institution and the same has been continued till 21.09.2007 through which District Magistrate again appointed as an Authorised Controller under Section 58(2) of the Act.
21. So far as regarding the factual aspect is concerned that the District Magistrate has been directed to perform the duty as a Manager of the Institution vide order dated 14.07.2003 has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
22. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut holding that disciplinary proceedings conducted by Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar as authorised controller of Kisan Degree College, Simbhaoli, Ghaziabad are correct since due opportunity of defence was given to petitioner and therefore the approval was granted to petitioner's dismissal from service.
23. Disciplinary proceedings conducted by Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar has been challenged on the ground that neither by any judicial order nor by the State Government appointed Deputy Collector, as Authorised Controller.
24. The contentions of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that under Section 58(2) of the Act, the State Government has appointed Collector, Ghaziabad as Authorised Controller and no power of sub-delegation was conferred upon him, Collector Ghaziabad had not authority to nominate any other person as Authorised Controller of College and any such order passed by Collector nominating Additional District Magistrate or Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. In these circumstances it is also contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings conducted by Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar under the capacity of Authorised Controller through delegated power of District Magistrate being Manager in pursuance to order dated 14.07.2003 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 29641 of 2003 are also wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and Vice Chancellor of University having failed to consider this aspect of the matter has erred in law and impugned order dated 08.03.2013 is patently illegal.
25. The factual aspect regarding appointment of District Magistrate Ghaziabad as Manager vide order dated 14.07.2003 passed in Writ Petition no. 29641 of 2003 and thereafter the powers delegated by the District Magistrate to Deputy District Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar to function as the administrator of the college was not permissible since the same has been delegated by the District Magistrate without seeking permission of the Court, and as such the entire exercise carried out by the Deputy Collector, Garh Mukteshwar in shape of putting petitioner in suspension, issuing charge-sheet, appointment of Enquiry Officer and thereafter recommendation of termination to the Vice Chancellor was patently illegal and without jurisdiction. That be so impugned order passed by Vice chancellor also cannot be sustained.
26. In the result writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 08.03.2013 passed by Vice Chacellor of University is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 22.12.2023
Shaswat
