[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
CAV Order
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
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
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)
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
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
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. 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
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. 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
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.
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.
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,
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
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,
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
