Karnataka High Court
Azeem Pasha vs The Central University Of ... on 10 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.200112 OF 2022 (S-DIS)
Between:
Azeem Pasha
S/o Ahmedsab
Aged about 44 years
Occ: Assistant Registrar (Procurement)
Central University of Kalaburagi
R/o Plot No.90, Ahmednagar Colony
Near Aland Checkpost
Kalaburagi 585 104
...Petitioner
(By Sri Mahesh Patil, Advocate)
And:
The Central University of Karnataka
Kalaburagi
Rep by its Registrar
Near Kadaganchi village
Aland Road
Kalaburagi 585 367
... Respondent
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari by quashing the order bearing No.CUK/RPS/2021-
2
22/54 dated 04.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent at
Annexure-B.
In this petition arguments being heard, judgment
reserved, coming on for "Pronouncement of Orders" this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, while he working
as Assistant Registrar (Procurement), he was placed under
suspension by Order dated 04 th January, 2022 by the
respondent-University. It is stated in the writ petition that the
in-charge Registrar is incompetent to pass the impugned order
as per Clause 6(5) of the Central University Act, 2009 (for short
hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is further stated that the
impugned order is misconceived as the petitioner was working as
Assistant Registrar (Procurement), however, in the impugned
order, the designation is mentioned as Assistant Registrar
(Academics). Hence, the petitioner has presented this writ
petition challenging the order of suspension (Annexure-B).
3. Sri Mahesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the in-charge Registrar has no authority under
the Act to pass the suspension order, so also, he contended that
the order impugned is without any reason and as such, sought
for interference of this Court. He places reliance on the law
declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
MARIDEV (M.) (M MARIYAPPA) v. STATE OF MYSORE AND
OTHERS reported in ILR 1968 KAR 270.
4. Per contra, Sri Girish P.S., learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-University, submitted that impugned order of
suspension was passed contemplating an enquiry against the
petitioner. He further contended that memorandum of charge is
issued against the petitioner and therefore, interference at this
stage, does not call for in this writ petition.
5. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the
petitioner has been posted as Assistant Registrar (Procurement
and Store) of the respondent-University as per Annexure-A and
the impugned order at Annexure-B was passed by the in-charge
Registrar in terms of 6(5)(a) of the Act. The core question that
is to be answered in this writ petition is, whether the in-charge
Registrar is empowered to pass the suspension order. Clause
6(5)(a) of the Act, provides as follows:
"6(5)(a) The Registrar shall have power to take
disciplinary action against such of the employees,
excluding teachers and other academic staff, as may be
specified in the order of the Executive Council and to
suspend them pending inquiry, to administer warnings to
them or to impose on them the penalty of censure or the
withholding of increment:
Provided that no such penalty shall be imposed
unless the person has been given a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed
to be taken in regard to him."
6. The plain language employed in Clause 6(5)(a) of
the Act is that the Registrar has a power to take disciplinary
action against the employees of the University. In the present
case, the impugned order is passed by the in-charge Registrar
who has no authority under the Act to pass suspension order
against the petitioner. This Court, in the case of MARIDEVA
(supra), at paragraph 10 of the judgment, observed as follows:
"10. The note to rule 32 does not expressly state
that the appointment contemplated is to be in charge of
the current duties of an office independently; but the
meaning of the note is quite clear. It means that instead
of appointing a Government servant to officiate, it is also
permissible to appoint him to be in independent charge of
the current duties of a vacant post in a higher
appointment as a temporary measure. When the
impugned order expressly states that the in-charge
appointment is made under rule 32 on a temporary basis,
it has to be construed as meaning that respondents 3 to 8
are placed in independent charge of the current duties of
the vacant posts of Assistant District Excise Officers and
nothing more. Placing a subordinate officer, in
independent charge of the current duties of a vacant post
in a higher appointment does not amount to his
promotion to the higher post. A subordinate officer
charged with the performance of the duty of a superior
for a limited time and under special and temporary
conditions, is not thereby transformed into the superior
and permanent official. Officiating appointments, and in
charge arrangements are well-understood terms in civil
service. When an officer is appointed to officiate in a
higher appointment, he is invested with the powers of the
higher post, but when he is placed in charge of the
current duties of a vacant post in a higher appointment,
whether in addition to his own duties or independently, he
cannot exercise any of the statutory powers of the office;
he can merely perform the day-to-day office duties only. "
(emphasis supplied)
7. Applying the law declared by the Division Bench of
this Court in the aforementioned case to the case on hand, it is
to be held that the in-charge Registrar has no authority under
the Act to take plenary powers of the Registrar except
conducting day-to-day affairs of the University. In that view of
the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the in-charge Registrar has no
authority to pass the impugned order suspending the petitioner.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Writ petition allowed;
2. Order impugned dated 04th January, 2022
passed by the respondent is hereby quashed.
However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-
to take appropriate decision in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
