TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the said report, by a resolution adopted in a meeting held on 05th June 2003, took a decision to hold a proper disciplinary enquiry. He was placed under suspension. Vice- Chancellor of the University was also duly informed thereabout. 4. A charge-sheet containing eight charges was issued against the respondent no.3. He, however, did not file any show cause/reply thereto. 5. Upon recording evidence of some witnesses, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 03rd March 2004 opining that the respondent no.3 was prima facie guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, causing wrongful gain to himself and causing wrongful loss to the institution. Relevant portion of the report of the Enquiry Committee is quoted here to below : "In view of the aforesaid findings of the inquiry committee the charged employee can be said to be guilty of misconduct, dereliction of duty, acting with malafide intentions to obtain wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the college and his unbecoming conduct has resulted in great loss of goodwill and reputation to the college and thus the college was being continuously mismanaged by him." 6. On or about 17th May 2004, a copy of the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P. State University Act 1973, to Vice Chancellor in this context, the Managing Committee, college is directed that Dr. M.N. Khan be allowed to work as Principal with all benefits because decision of the managing body for removal from service is ex-parte unsatisfactory and not as per law. In the matter under reference, since as per his representation dated 24.4.2006 Dr. M.N. Khan Principal has attained the age of superannuation on 3.1.2006 the Managing Committee of College is directed to consider and take steps for retirement of Dr. M.N. Khan in accordance with rules." 9. Challenging the legality and/or validity of the said order, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court which, by reason of the impugned order, has been dismissed, stating: "Against the impugned order dated 7/12.7.2006 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Chancellor under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The record reveals that opposite party No.3, has already attained the age of superannuation on 3.1.2006 and the academic session 2005-06 has also come to an end on 30.6.2006. We, therefore, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of the Constitution of India as such regulatory measures are permissible in law. 14. The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 was enacted with a view to toning up the academic and financial administration of higher education in State of U.P. A comprehensive Bill applicable to all the State Universities (except the Roorkee University and Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural University), was prepared in the light of the recommendations made by various Commissions and Committees appointed by the Government of India and the State Government and also the views of the Vice-Chancellors and other educationists. 15. Various officers have been named in the Act to perform their respective functions as conferred upon them either under the Act or the Statute. Section 35 of the Act, inter alia, regulates the conditions of service of an employee in an institution or a college affiliated to the University; sub-section (2) whereof reads as under : "35. Conditions of service of teachers of affiliated or associated colleges other than those maintained by Government or local authority. (1) ............ (2) Every decision of the Management of such college to dismiss or remove a teacher or to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cher and communicated to him with a statement of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and he has been given adequate opportunity:- (i) of submitting a written statement of his defence; (ii) of being heard in person, if he so chooses, and (iii) of calling and examining such witness in his defence as he may wish; Provided that the Management or the officer authorized by it to conduct the inquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call any witness. (2) The management may, at any time ordinarily within two months from the date of the Inquiry Officer's report pass a resolution dismissing or removing the teacher concerned from service, or terminating his services mentioning the grounds of such dismissal, removal or termination. (3) The resolution shall forthwith be communicated to the teacher concerned and also be reported to the Vice-Chancellor for approval and shall not be operative unless so approved by the Vice-Chancellor. (4) The Management may, instead of dismissing, removing or terminating the services of the teacher, pass a resolution inflicting a lesser punishment by reducing the pay of the teacher for a specified period or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the Vice Chancellor is correct or not, particularly when it is open to the aggrieved party, under Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act, to have a reference made to the Chancellor of the University who has ample powers to decide whether any decision taken by any authority or officer is in conformity with the statutes and ordinances of the University. In view of this provision it is open to the Committee of Management to make a reference to the Chancellor to decide the issue regarding the validity of the termination of the services of Dr. Gaur and of the order of the Vice Chancellor. ...." 19. This Court, therefore, having regard to the factual matrix obtaining therein, refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 20. Apart from the fact that a statutory authority cannot consider the validity of a Statute, as has been urged before us by Mr. Choudhari, it is beyond any doubt or dispute that availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. It may exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the fact that an alternative remedy is available, inter alia, in a case where the same would not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive remedy is available. We may notice that Dr. Padia himself, in his usual fairness, has brought to our notice several decisions which upheld the validity of the regulatory power on the part of the University or affiliating bodies in the matter of order of dismissal, removal or suspension of an employee, viz., Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 707; Mrs. Y. Theclamma v. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 516 and Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union & Anr. etc. v. Christian Medical College Vellore Association & Ors. etc. (1987) 4 SCC 691, on the one hand, and the decisions opining that such a wide power cannot be conferred on a university, institution and minority institution being Yunus Ali Sha v. Mohamed Abdul Kalam & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 676 and Committee of Management, St. John Inter College v. Girdhari Singh & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 296. Our attention has also been drawn to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Secy., Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 386 wherein it was held : "19. The general principles relating to establishment and administration of educational ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taka (2002) 8 SCC 481. The State can prescribe : (i) ......... (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, (iii) ......... (iv) ... ... ..." 24. Whether in a case of this nature such a power has properly been exercised or not, in our opinion, being an intricate question should ordinarily fall for determination by the High Court itself. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of a Seven-Judge Bench of this court in the case of P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537 wherein it has been held : "126. The observations in para 68 of the majority opinion in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 on which the learned counsel for the parties have been much at variance in their submissions, according to us, are not to be read disjointly from other parts of the main judgment. A few observations contained in certain paragraphs of the judgment in Pai Foundation if read in isolation, appear conflicting or inconsistent with each other. But if the observations made and the conclusions derived are read as a whole, the judgment nowhere lays down ....