Dr. Durga Sharan Chandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4607 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                        NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         Writ Appeal No. 384 of 2022

Dr. Durga Sharan Chandra, s/o Shri I.L. Chandra, aged about 51 years, R/o D-
259, Rama Green City, Khamtarai, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                 ---- Appellant
                                   Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary to the Govt. of
      Chhattisgarh Department of Higher Education Mantralaya- Mahanadi
      Bhawan, Naya Raipur - PS Rakhi, Raipur (C.G.)
2.    The Governing Body (Constituted Under Statute 28 of College Code of
      C.G. Vishwavidyalaya Adhinium 1973 of D.P. Vipra College) Through -
      The Secretary to the Governing Body Office of Principal, D.P. Vipra
      College Old High Court Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
3.    The Principal D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur (C.G.)
4.    The Inquiry Officer D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur
      (C.G.)
                                                             ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

20.07.2022

Heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel,

appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 17.06.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 2951 of 2020, whereby, the

learned Single Judge had declined to grant interim relief.

3. Mr. Shrivastava, amongst others, submits that a resolution passed by the

governing body for removal of an employee cannot be given effect to unless

the same is approved by the Executive Council of the University and according

to him, as approval of the Executive Council of the University has not been

obtained, it cannot be deemed that the petitioner had been removed from

service and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge committed

error of law in not granting an interim order to protect the interest of the

petitioner.

4. On a query of the Court as to whether the petitioner is functioning as of

today, it is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the petitioner is under suspension.

On a further query of the Court as to whether the petitioner is receiving any

subsistence allowance, the reply is in the negative.

5. Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, on the basis of the letter dated

17.02.2022 submits that the petitioner had been removed from service with

immediate effect. Mr. Sharma further submits that no question arises for grant

of subsistence allowance, as the petitioner was removed from service.

6. The validity of the order of the removal has to be judged on merits by the

learned Single, and therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge that

any order allowing the petitioner to continue in service would result in passing

an order of status quo ante and besides, the same would be in the nature of

final relief, cannot be faulted with.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion

that, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, there are debatable

issues including maintainability of the writ petition which will require detail

consideration. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion

exercised by the learned Single Judge while refusing to grant interim relief.

8. But, at the same time, having regard to the nature of the controversy, we

are of the opinion that an earlier resolution is called for.

9. Taking that view, while dismissing the writ appeal, we direct the Registry

to list the case before the appropriate Bench having roster on 22.08.2022.

10. Pleadings shall be completed, if not already completed, by 12.08.2022.

11. We request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the matter at the

earliest.

                            Sd/-                                     Sd/-
                   (Arup Kumar Goswami)                    (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                        Chief Justice                             Judge
Brijmohan