TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (2) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Senate and the Central Council. The Central Council was the executive body of the University and it had the power inter alia to appoint teachers and to define their duties. The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in English by the Central Council on 25th April, 1966 and after his period of probation was over he was confirmed as lecturer with effect from 29th April, 1967. The conditions of service of the respondent, like those of other confirmed teachers, were regulated by the Statutes made by the Senate from time to time under the provisions of Act of 196.5. Statute 2 provided that every salaried teacher of the University shall have to execute a written contract with the University and the conditions of service of teachers appointed by the University shall be those embodied in the agreement of service annexed to the Statutes and every teacher shall execute such agreement before he enters upon his duties or as soon as possible thereafter. It appears that though Statute 2 required an agreement of service to be executed by a teacher, no such agreement of service was executed by the respondent on his appointment as lecturer. But it was common ground between the parties that the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... power would also carry with it the power to dismiss teachers below the status of a reader. Since the University of Jammu & Kashmir came to an end on the repeal of the Act of 1965 and two new universities, one of Kashmir and the other of Jammu, were established, some provision had to be made in the Act of 1969 for continuance of the Statutes and Regulations so that there might be no hiatus or break causing dislocation in the functioning of the two new universities. Section 51 of the Act of 1969. therefore. provided that all Statutes and Regulations made under the Act of 1965 and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1969 shall so far as may be consistent with the provisions of the latter Act, continue to be in force in each University and section 48. sub-sec. (2) gave power to the special officer to "examine the Statutes and Regulations continued under section 51 of this Act and propose such modifications, alterations and additions therein as may be necessary to bring such Statutes and Regulations in conformity with the provisions of this Act" and provided that the modifications, alterations and additions proposed by the Special officer shall, if approved by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; x x x x (4) all persons who immediately before the commencement of this Act were holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the University of Jammu and Kashmir, on contract basis or by virtue of their deputation to such posts or offices from other services in the State. unless otherwise ordered by the Chancellor after consulting the Pro-Chancellor, shall cease to hold such posts or to discharge such duties after 60 days from the commencement of this Act and all such contracts with or deputations to he University of Jammu & Kashmir shall stand terminated with effect from the expiry of the said period of 60 days." Since most of the teachers had entered into an agreement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Order dated 24th December, 1969 and section 13 (4) of the Act of 1969. It may be convenient at this stage, before we proceed further, to refer to section 13(4), since considerable argument before us turned upon it Section 13 deals with the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor and sub-section (4) of that section reads as follows: "(4) The Vice-Chancellor may take action as he deems necessary in any emergency which, in his opinion, calls for immediate action. He shall in such a ease and as soon as may be thereafter, report his action to the officer, authority or other body of the University concerned who or which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter." Sub-section (6) of section 13 is also material and it is in the following terms: "(6 ) The Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the University Council and the Syndicate of the University concerned regarding the appointment, dismissal and suspension of persons in the employment of the University and shall exercise general control over the affairs of the University. He shall be responsible for the discipline of the University in accordance with this Act, Statutes and Regulations." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is not necessary to refer to them in detail having regard to the course which the appeal has taken before us. The writ petition was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court and by a judgment dated 28th April, 1972 the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. The respondent there upon preferred a Letters Patent appeal in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the departmental enquiry which was started against the respondent. was completed and the committee made a report absolving the respondent of all the charges except charges Nos. 1 and 12 of which the respondent was found guilty. The syndicate, after considering the report of the committee, resolved to issue a notice to the respondent to show cause why "the punishment for termination of his services from the University be not imposed on him" on the ground of charges Nos. 1 and 12. Pursuant to this resolution, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent which led to the filing of a petition by the respondent in the Letters Patent appeal for taking notice of these subsequent events. The respondent in this petition challenged the report of the committee as also the resolution of the Syndicate on various grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould have earned but for the suspension. It was also declared in the settlement that there shall be no stigma whatsoever attached to the respondent and so far as the personal allegations made by him against the University authorities we;re concerned, they would stand withdrawn by him. The settlement also provided that the respondent should be given benefit of continuity of service and if the validity of the Order of suspension was ultimately upheld by this Court and it was held that the respondent was not legally entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance actually paid to him, the matter would be left to the Chancellor to determine in his sole and. absolute discretion as to whether any additional amount at all, and if so, what amount, may be paid to the respondent for the period of suspension exgratia without any liability on the part of the University. The Chancellor was authorised to determine this matter in consultation with the Pro-Chancellor or in such other manner as he thought proper and he could do so, even without giving any opportunity to either party to make his or their submissions in the matter. Having regard to this settlement, the only two questions whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of tins assumption would be to put clause (9) (ii) of Schedule II to the order dated 24th December, 1969 out of the way of the respondent and it would not be available to the University and the Vice-Chancellor m support of the Order of suspension. But even so, we think the Vice-Chancellor had power to make the Order of suspension and he was within his authority in doing so. We have already pointed out that by reason of Statute 2 read with clause (6) of the Form of Agreement annexed to the Statutes made under the Act of 1965, the respondent was bound by any changes which might be made in the Statutes from time to time and no change made in the Statutes was to be regarded as having adversely affected the respondent. Now, the Statutes made under the Act of 196.5 continued to be applicable to the University by reason of section 51, but section 48, sub-section (2) provided for making of modifications, alterations and additions in the Statutes with a view to bringing them in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1969. The Special Officer accordingly proposed certain modifications in the Statutes which were found necessary to bring the Statutes in conformity with the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch, therefore, arises for consideration is whether Statute 24(ii,) could reasonably be said to be necessary for bringing the Statutes in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1969. We may first refer to section 13, sub-section (4) of the Act of 1969 which confers power on the Vice-Chancellor to take such action as he deems necessary in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action. A similar provision was also made in section 13, sub-section (4) of the Act of 1965. But the Act of 1969 introduced a new provision in sub-section (6) of section 13 to the effect that the Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the discipline of the University in accordance with the Act, Statutes and Regulations. The Vice-Chancellor was, thus, entrusted under sub-section (6) of section 13 with the task of maintaining discipline in the University and the entrustment of this task carried with it by necessary implication power to. take whatever action was necessary for the purpose of maintaining discipline, provided of course such action was in accordance with the Act of 1969' and the Statutes and Regulations. Since sub-section (6) of section 13 was a new provision enacted in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b-section (4). The Order of suspension, in fact, recited that it was made in exercise of the power conferred under section 13, sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) of section 13 is general in terms and provides that the Vice Chancellor shall be entitled to. take such action as he deems necessary in any emergency which in his opinion calls forimmediate action. It does not talk specifically of an order of interim suspension of a teacher but the width and amplitude of the language of the provision would clearly include action by way of interim suspension of a teacher,' when there is in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor an emergency calling for immediate action. The respondent contended that the power to order interim suspension is a quasi judicial power and it would not be comprehended within the language of sub-section (4) of section 13. But this contention is clearly fallacious and the premise on which it is based is unsound. It is not correct to say that an order of interim suspension is a quasi judicial order and in any event, the language of sub-section (4-) of section 13 is sufficiently wide and comprehensive to take within its scope and ambit every kind of action which may be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 13, sub-section (4). It may be noted that immediately after making the order of suspension the Vice Chancellor placed it before the Syndicate at its next meeting as required by the second part of section 13, subsection (4) and the Syndicate approved of the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor by rejecting the representation of the respondent and recording the fact of the making of the order of suspension. We may also refer to one other contention urged on behalf of the respondent and that was that by reason of section 52, sub-section (1) the respondent was entitled to continue in service of the University on the same terms and conditions as regulated his service before the commencement of the Act of 1969 and in view of the provide to sub-section (2) of section 52 the conditions of service of the respondent could not be varied to his disadvantage and, therefore, neither Statute 24(ii) nor section 13, sub-section (4) could operate to confer on the Vice-Chancellor power to make the order of suspension which he did not possess under the old terms and conditions. This contention, plausible though it may seem, is, in our opinion, not well founded. Section 52, subsection (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise of the power conferred by that Statute. Section 13, sub-section (4) of the Act of 1969 could also be availed of by the Vice-Chancellor for sustaining the order of suspension, since it conferred the same power on the Vice-Chancellor as section 13, sub-section (4) of the Act of 1965 and exercise of the power conferred by it as against the respondent did not involve any violation of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 52. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of suspension was a valid order made by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Statute 24(ii) as also section 13, sub-section (4) of the Act of 1969. Now, if the order of suspension was a valid order, it suspended the contract between the respondent and the University and neither the respondent was bound to perform his duties under the contract nor was the University bound to pay any salary to him. The respondent was entitled to receive from the University only such subsistence allowance as might be payables under the rules and regulations governing his terms and conditions of service. The legal position in regard to the right of a master to suspend his servant is now well settled as a resu....