Jharkhand High Court
Prof. Dr. Amar Kumar Singh vs Siddhu Kanhu Murmu University on 25 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 511 of 2010
(Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
--------
Prof. Dr. Amar Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Siddhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka through its Vice-
Chancellor
2. The Registrar, Siddhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka,
Jharkhand
3. H.E. The Chancellor, Siddhu Kanhu Murmu Univerisity,
Dumka, Raj Bhavan, Ranchi-1
4. The State of Jharkhand, Ranchi through the Director, H.R.D.
Department, Higher Education ..... Respondents
---------
For the Petitioner : Dr. Shree Krishna Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Neelam Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
---------
Present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
JUDGMENT
By Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. Order dated 05.3.2021 is quoted herein below:
"26/05.03.2021 Heard through V.C.
2. Order dated 22.09.2020 reads as under:
"17/22.09.2020 Heard Dr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent University through V.C.
2. The instant application has been preferred by
the petitioner for quashing the order of removal of the petitioner as
contained in Letter No. 65 of 2009 dated 14.7.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws
attention of this court towards annexure 13, which is the impugned
order, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service by the
order of the Vice-Chancellor.
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
University has taken a preliminary objection that as per Clause 19
of the relevant statute, there is a provision of appeal and the
petitioner should have filed the same.
5. On this argument, Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to
Annexure-8, which is an appeal filed by the petitioner before the
Chancellor. From the counter affidavit filed by the University it
does not appear as to whether the appeal has been disposed of or
not.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent University is
directed to file an affidavit as to whether the appeal preferred by
the petitioner, i.e. Annexure 8, has been disposed of or not.
7. Put up this case on 6th October, 2020 enabling Dr.
Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent University to
reply on the aforesaid point.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to Dr. Ashok Kr.
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent University through
electronic device."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, on 04.12.2020 Dr. Ashok Kr.
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent University submitted before this Court
that he had already informed the OSD(J) to Her Excellency Governor indicating
therein as to what is the development of the appeal filed by the petitioner, which is
annexed as Annexure 18. On 04.12.2020, Dr. Singh further contended that inspite
of his best efforts he could not get any response and Mr. Bhawesh Kumar is the
designated counsel for Respondent No. 3.
4. On his submission the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the
entire application to Mr. Bhawesh Kumar within a period of one week and it was
also directed that Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, who is the designated counsel for
Respondent No.3 shall ascertain as to whether the appeal filed by the petitioner has
been disposed of or not.
5. Today neither anyone appears for Her Excellency Governor nor is
Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, whose name is also reflected in the cause list, present.
6. The facts of the case is that the impugned order dated 14.7.2009,
whereby the petitioner has been disqualified from future employment, is completely
a non speaking order as no reason whatsoever has been assigned as to why the
petitioner has been held negligent or disobedient. Pursuant to the impugned order,
the petitioner filed a detailed appeal as per the provision of Bihar Universities Act,
however, till date there is no information as to whether the said appeal has been
disposed of or not and only for this reason the case has been adjourned thrice.
7. Be that as it may, with a view to give one more opportunity to
Respondent No.3 to file an affidavit as per previous orders passed by this Court, put
up this case on 25.03.2021.
It is made clear that if no response will come on behalf of
Respondent No.3, on the next ensuing date the matter will be taken up on its own
merit.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of the Advocate
General."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Mr. Ashutosh
Anand, learned counsel appeared for His Excellency,
Governor-cum-Chancellor and submits that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner is still pending and since it is an
old matter as such interest of justice would be served if a
representation along with copy of the writ application and
memo of appeal is filed before the Chancellor so that a
reasoned order can be passed.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid submission of Mr.
Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
case may be disposed of; however, concerned respondent may
be directed to dispose of the appeal at the earliest so that the
case may not linger any more.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the orders passed in this case, the instant
writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the
petitioner to file a fresh representation along with one copy of
the instant writ application containing memo of Appeal before
the Respondent No.3; who is further directed to dispose of the
appeal which is at Annexure 18 to the writ application within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such
representation.
It goes without saying that the appeal shall be
disposed of by following principles of natural justice and the
parties will cooperate for early disposal of the appeal.
6. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 25.08.2021, Ranchi
sm/
