Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Kumar Lalwani vs Hidayatullah National Law ... on 24 August, 2022
Page 1 of 6
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCC No 448 of 2022
Dinesh Kumar Lalwani S/o Shri N.K. Lalwani Aged About 46 Years R/o
13/15, Panjwani Gali, Nahar Para, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Hidayatullah National Law University, Through Its Registrar,
Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Hidayatulla National Law University, Atal
Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Registrar, Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
24-08.2022
1. Today the instant MCC has been registered suo moto for orders on
correction in the order dated 21-7-2022 passed by this Court in
WPS No.4954 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar Lalwani vs. Hidayatullah
National Law University). Accordingly, instead of the order dated
21-7-2022 passed in WPS No 4954 of 2022, the order is modified
which reads as under.
2. The respondent is a National Law University constituted in
pursuance of the Hidayatullah National University of Law
Chhattisgarh Act, 2003 (for short "the Act of 2003") with an object to
advance and disseminated learning and knowledge of law and
research. Section 5 of the Act of 2003 deals with the power and
function of the University. Section 7 of the Act defines visitor of the
University, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India is visitor of the
University. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh will be Chancellor of the University. Section 9 of the
Act defines the powers of visitors and Chancellor. Section 10
defines authority of the University which consists of General
Council, Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance Committee
and any such other authorities as may be provided by the
regulation.
3. Section 14 of the Act defines officer of the University, Section 15
provides statutes of University and Section 16 defines Ordinances
of the University. Section 17 defines regulations and this section
provides that the executive council in addition to all the powers
vested in it, the power to frame regulations to provide for the
administration and management of the affairs of the University.
Statutes 19 of the Act defines procedure for appointment and power
of the vice chancellor. The sub-clause (7) provides power of the
Vice Chancellor and sub-clause (c) which is material for
adjudication of the present dispute reads as under:-
"c - Have all the powers relating to the proper
maintenance of discipline in the university. "
4. Statutes 20 defines the Registrar of the University and Sub-section
3 of the statutes provides the duties of the Registrar.
5. The petitioner was suspended on 06.08.2020 (Annexure P/1) by
the Registrar of the University contemplating a disciplinary
proceeding. It has been contended by the petitioner that the
suspension order dated 06.08.2020 has neither been placed nor
confirmed by the Executive Council in its meeting held on
20.12.2020 therefore, it has lost its significance. Still the petitioner
has been kept suspension and has prayed for following reliefs: -
(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside
the impugned communication / order dated 06.08.2020
(Annexure P/1).
(ii) That is Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate writ/directions directing the University not to treat
the petitioner as suspended and further be pleased to direct
for payment of full pay and allowances as a regular
employee.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that suspension
order has been issued by incompetent authority as the Registrar
is not the competent authority to place him on suspension. He
would further submit that competent authority has been defined
under Section 2(6) of the Hidayatullah National Law University
Staff Regulations, 2015. As per the regulation the executive council
or any authority to which the power is delegated by or under this
regulation is the competent authority. The regulation 35 empowers
this competent authority to place any employee under suspension
and regulation 36 defines the power of competent authority to
initiate proceeding against any employee of the institute.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the Registrar
nor the vice chancellor is the competent authority to suspend the
petitioner. To substantiate his submission he would refer to
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Marathwada
University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan reported in (1989) 3
SCC 132, wherein it was held that without there being any
delegation, the delegating authority will have no power to act,
unless the authority delegating has expressly delegated the power,
and further held in para 30 which is reads as under :
"30......... held that there was no prior delegation
of power to the Vice-Chancellor to take
disciplinary action against the respondent. There
was no subsequent delegation either. Therefore,
neither the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor,
nor the ratification by the Executive counsel could
be sustained."
8. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Gwalior Rayon and Silk Manufacturing Company vs
The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others (1974) 4
SCC 98 and would refer to para 37 of the judgment which is
quoted below:
"37 - In this context it is necessary to have a clear idea of
the concept of delegation. Delegation is not the complete
handing over or transference of a power from one person or
body of persons to another. Delegation may be defined as
the entrusting, by a person or body of persons, of the
exercise of a power residing in that person or body of
persons, to another person or body of persons, with
complete power of revocation or amendment remaining in
the grantor or delegator. It is important to grasp the
implications of this, for, much confusion of thought had
unfortunately resulted from assuming that, delegation
involves, or may involve the complete abdication or
abrogation of a power. This is precluded by the definition.
Delegation often involves the granting of discretionary
authority to another, but inch authority is purely derivative.
The, ultimate power always remains in the delegator and is
never renounced.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3
would submit that the impugned order of suspension is in
accordance with Rules, Regulations and statutes of the University
and the University has the power to delegate all its power to the
Vice Chancellor or Registry of the University and by exercising the
same, the Registrar of the University has issued the suspension
order is well founded, which does not call for any interference in the
instant petition. He would further submit that as per the provisions of
the Act and Statutes which confer all powers upon the vice
chancellor to take action for maintaining discipline in the university
amongst the university employee.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Act, 2003, statutes of the
Hidaytullah Law University and Chapter VII of Regulations 2015
deal with the disciplinary rules and applicability of provisions, rules,
and regulations of Chhattisgarh State Government to employees of
the universities. The Regulation 35 deals with the suspension,
penalty and disciplinary authorities. The Regulation 2(6) of
Regulations 2015 defines competent authority in relation to exercise
of any power means the executive council and any authority to
which the power is delegated by or under this regulation. The
regulation 37 defines the appellate authority which provides that if
any penalty is imposed on any employee by the Registrar the
employees concerned can prefer an appeal to the Executive
Council within 30 days. The Statutes further provides that if
punishment order is passed by the Executive Council then the
employee concerning may file an appeal to the vice chancellor
within 30 days from the date of the order.
12. From bare perusal of Statutes 19 (7) the University it is quite clear
that the vice chancellor of the university has all powers relating to
proper maintenance of discipline in the University. It is not in dispute
that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of personal assistant
was issued by the order of Vice Chancellor of the university as such the
vice chancellor of the university is the appointing authority and the
Registrar of the university as per Act, 2003 has to work as per Section
20 of the Act, 2003, Registrar has to comply with all the directions and
orders of the Executive Council and Vice Chancellor, therefore, the
suspension order has been rightly issued. Even the appellate provisions
made in Regulation 37 also provide the appellate mechanism against
the punishment order, therefore, if the order is passed by the Registrar,
appeal has to be preferred before the Vice Chancellor of the University
and if the punishment order is passed by the Vice Chancellor, then the
appeal would lie to the Executive Council. The petitioner is unable to
point out that the Executive Council of the University is the appointing
authority, therefore, the judgment Marathwada University v. Seshrao
Balwant Rao Chavan (supra) is clearly distinguishable to the facts of
the present case.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition, being devoid of
substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the
merit of the suspension order. Only competency and authority of the
disciplinary authority's power to suspend the petitioner has been
examined.
15. Accordingly, the instant MCC stands disposed of. A copy of this
order be retained in the original file of WPS No. 4954 of 2022.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
