*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.19395 of 2010 % 11-08-2010 Between: # Prof. P.Kusuma Kumari, w/o B. subramanyam Reddy, Vice Chancellor, S.K.University, Ananthapur …Petitioner And The State of A.P. by its Secretary, Higher Education department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr.M. Vidyasagar ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Education Mr.M.Ramalingeswara Reddy (SC for SKU) < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. (1863) 14 CBNS 180 2. (1891) ILR 13 ALL 171 3. AIR 1967 SC 1269 4. AIR 1970 SC 150 5. (1971) AC 297 6. (1978) 1 SCC 248 7.AIR 1981 SC 818 8. (1997) 1 SCC 444 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.19395 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who was hitherto the Vice- Chancellor of Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Anantapur, (henceforth referred to as `University’) has been removed from the said office by the Chancellor through orders dated 1.8.2010. Consequent thereto the State Government has made incharge arrangement through their orders contained in G.O.Rt. No. 546, Higher Education (UE.I) Department, dated 1.8.2010, validity of both these orders is challenged in this writ petition. The writ petitioner submitted that she was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University and assumed charge of the said office on 23.8.2008 and that she was discharging her duties with utmost devotion and that she was carrying on the functions in accordance with the spirit of the Universities Act and rules and regulations framed by the University and that she has been functioning quite transparently and openly. The Executive Council Meeting of the University was held on 17.12.2008 and at that meeting it was unanimously resolved to regularize the services of eight Assistant Professors who have been appointed earlier under X Plan Scheme and that though she wanted to record her dissent, she could not do so inasmuch as the Principal Secretary to the Government in the Higher Education Department and the Secretary to the Government in the Finance Department, both are ex-officio members of the said Executive Council and present at the meeting have approved of the proposed action of regularization of those teachers. It is further pointed out that the attempts made by the University to make recruitment to 14 posts of Assistant Professors in Group I and 15 posts of Assistant Professors in Group II had fallen through due to the intervention of this court, thus requiring re-notification of those very vacancies through separate notifications published on 4.2.2009 and 5.2.2009 respectively. It is further submitted that entertaining an allegation that the writ petitioner has committed certain irregularities, the State Government appointed a Two Men Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor K.C.Reddy to inquire into the allegations. It is submitted that Professor K.C.Reddy Committee has been apprised of all the facts and made available the necessary records and files for its perusal and it submitted its report holding that several of the allegations leveled against the writ petitioner are baseless. But, however, Prof. K.C.Reddy Committee has recommended to appraise this court of its findings relating to the fixation of roaster points for recruitment of Assistant Professors, since WP No. 18681 of 2009 which was filed challenging the validity of the aforementioned two notifications, was pending. It is further pointed out that the said writ petition has been dismissed by this court on 22.1.2010, even before the University could take any action to bring to it’s notice the findings of Professor K.D.Reddy Committee. It is further stated that the State Government through their letter dated 10.12.2009 directed the University to place the report of Prof. K.C.Reddy Committee before the Executive Council. Accordingly, steps are taken to place the report of Prof. K.C.Reddy Committee before the Executive Council Meeting scheduled for 16.12.2009. However, due to the concerted action of the members of the Executive Council, the meeting could not be held for want of quorum and consequently Prof.K.C.Reddy’s Committee Report could not be placed at the said meeting. It is further asserted that several attempts were subsequently made for convening and holding the Executive Council Meeting, but, with little success. At this stage, the Chancellor of the University has appointed Justice A.Hanumanthu, a retired Judge of this Court as Enquiry Authority for conducting an enquiry against the writ petitioner for willful omission and refusal to carry out the provisions of the Universities Act, through a notification published by the State Government in their G.O. Ms. No. 17, Higher Education (UE-I) Department, dated 3.3.2010. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Authority had finalized and submitted its report on 31.7.2010 and after examining the findings of the report of the Enquiry Authority, the State Government observed that the writ petitioner has committed irregularities in appointments of Assistant Professors notified on 4.2.2009 and 5.2.2009 and issuing orders of appointment by willfully violating Section 19(5)(ii) of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991, and that the writ petitioner has violated the instructions issued by the Government through their letters dated 10.12.2009, 28.1.2010 and 19.2.2010 apart from committing financial and other irregularities. Based on the opinion tendered by the State Government, the Chancellor passed the impugned orders on 1st August 2010 removing the writ petitioner from the Office of the Vice-Chancellor of the University for her willful omission and refusal to carry out the provisions of the Universities Act, 1991. The State Government through their notification got published in G.O. Rt. No. 546, Higher Education (UE.I) Department, dated 1.8.2010, has made in-charge arrangements appointing the Vice-Chancellor of Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa as in-charge Vice- Chancellor of the respondent University with effect from 2.8.2010. Hence, the above writ petition has been instituted questioning the orders passed by the Chancellor in terms of Section 11(2) of the A.P. Universities Act 1991 and the notification of the government contained in G.O. Rt. No. 546, Higher Education (UE.I) Department, dated 1.8.2010 making in- charge arrangements. I have heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri M.Vidya Sagar and Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned Addl. Advocate General for the 1st respondent – State and Sri M.Ramalinga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent University. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the State Legislature has enacted Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991, Act 4 of 1991 (henceforth referred to as ‘Universities Act’), with a view to democratize the functioning of the Univerities in the State by drawing upon the rich experience of several persons in various fields and that the Universities Act is essentially intended to confer greater autonomy upon the Universities concerned and that Section 8 of the said Act, which empowers the State Government to have the right to cause an inspection of the University, its buildings, laboratories, libraries, museums, workshops and equipments and of any institutions maintained by or affiliated to the University and also cause an enquiry to be made, into the teaching and other work conducted with the University, has to be understood to be narrow in it’s scope. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that government in case seeks to conduct an inspection or enquiry, shall give notice to the University of its intention to cause such an inspection or enquiry and that the University will be entitled to represent thereat and in the instant case, no such procedure has been adopted or followed and that baseless allegations have been made the basis for inquiry contrary to the mandate contained in Section 8 and that as soon as Justice A.Hanumanthu Enquiry Authority submitted its report on 31.7.2010, the Chancellor has exercised the power available to him under sub-section (2) of Section 11 even without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity for the writ petitioner to defend herself against the proposed action. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the copy of the report of the Enquiry Authority has not been made available to the writ petitioner to enable her to assess the correctness of the findings of the said authority. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that consistently courts have been reading the applicability of the principles of natural justice even if a statutory provision does not specifically require adherence thereto, provided the action is likely to effect the rights of any other individual and hence the learned Senior Counsel would submit that for sheer violation of principles of natural justice the impugned orders deserve to be set-at- naught. Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned Addl. Advocate General who took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent would submit that a fair opportunity has been accorded by the Enquiring Authority duly permitting the petitioner to examine witnesses on her behalf and based upon the findings contained in the report submitted by the Enquiring Authority, the State Government has tendered its opinion for the Chancellor to take appropriate action and accordingly the Chancellor has passed appropriate orders and since the writ petitioner had more than a fair opportunity to defend herself before the Enquiring Authority the contention that the follow up action has been taken in breach of principles of natural justice does not hold water. The learned Addl. Advocate General would further submit that the differences between the writ petitioner – Vice-Chancellor of the University and the rest of the Executive Committee members are so deep and persisting, consequently the meetings of the Executive Council could not be held for one reason or the other including lack of quorum and that the writ petitioner has been found guilty of violating the provisions contained in sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Universities Act and hence action taken by the Chancellor is undoubtedly in conformity with the provisions of the Universities Act warranting no interference. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the atmosphere in the University has been vitiated and has reached such a stage where no teaching work worth the mention, was going on for the past over five months and all sections of the staff, both teaching and non-teaching and the students are adversely effected by the near chaotic conditions prevailing in the University’s administration and that the writ petitioner has deliberately avoided making any references to the communications which she has received from the State Government on 10.12.2009, 28.1.2010 and 19.2.2010 and her failure to comply with the directives of the Government. Thus, for having violated the provisions of the Act, the impugned action of the Chancellor is sustainable. Before examining the rival contentions canvassed on either side, I consider it appropriate to peruse some of the important provisions of the Universities Act. Sub-Section (9) of Section 2 of the Universities Act defined the expression `Government’ as meaning the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 4 of the Universities Act ordained that on and from the date of commencement of the said Act (i) The Andhra University established under the Andhra University Act, 1925 (Act II of 1926). (ii) The Kakatiya University established under the Kakatiya University Act, 1976 (Act 44 of 1976). (iii) Sri Krishna Devaraya University established under the Sri Krishna Devaraya University Act, 1981 (Act 36 of 1981). (iv) The Nagarjuna University established under the Nagarjuna University Act, 1976 (Act 43 of 1976). (v) The Osmania University established under the Osmania University Act, 1959, (Act 9 of 1959) and, (vi) Sri Venkateswara University established under Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954 (Act XIV of 1954), shall be deemed to have been established and incorporated under this Act and they were declared as such to be Universities by the aforesaid names. Thus, the respondent – University is one such University which is deemed to have been established and incorporated under the Universities Act. Powers, functions and objects of the Universities have been dealt with in great detail in Section 5 of the Universities Act. Section 8 dealt with power of inspection and inquiry by the government and the follow up action to be taken by the University. Section 9 defined who would constitute the officers of the University. The Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Rector, the Principals/Dean of the University Colleges, the Registrar, The Finance Officer and such other persons as the Statutes may declare to be officers of the University would constitute the officers. Section 10 declares that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh shall be the Chancellor of every University established or deemed to have been established under the Universities Act. Section 11 dealt with the method and manner of appointment and removal of the Vice-Chancellor. Since Sections 10 and 11 will have a bearing upon the controversy at issue, it will be appropriate to notice the said provisions in detail. They read as under: “10 Chancellor :- The Governor of the Andhra Pradesh shall be the Chancellor of every University established or deemed to have been established under this Act. He shall by virtue of his office, be the Head of the University and shall, when present, preside at convocations of the University. He shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred on or vested in him by or under the provisions of this Act. The Chancellor may, by order in writing annul any proceeding of the University, which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes or the Ordinances: Provided that before making any such order he shall give a notice calling upon the University to show cause why such an order should not be made and if any cause is shown within the time specified therefor in the said notice, shall consider the same. 11 Vice-Chancellor :- (1) The Government shall constitute a Search Committee consisting of: (i) a nominee of the Executive Council; (ii) a nominee of the University Grants Commission; and (iii) a nominee of the State Government. The Search Committee shall submit a panel of three persons to the Government in alphabetical order from among whom the State Government shall recommend one person to the Chancellor for appointment as Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor shall appoint such person as Vice-Chancellor: Provided that it shall be competent for the Government to call for a fresh panel if they consider necessary and the Search Committee shall submit a fresh panel to the Government. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the Chancellor passed on the ground of wilful omission or refusal to carry out the provisions of this Act, or abuse of the powers vested in h i m and after due enquiry ordered by the Government, by the Lokayukta or by such person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court as may be appointed by the Chancellor in which the Vice- Chancellor shall have an opportunity of making his representation against such removal: Provided that where the enquiry is conducted by a person who is or has been a Judge of High Court or the Supreme Court the report of such an enquiry shall be forwarded to the Government and the Chancellor shall act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Government on a consideration of the report while exercising his powers under this sub-section; Provided further that where the Lokayukta enquires into an allegation against the Vice- Chancellor under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta Act, 1983, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 12 of that Act, the Lokayukta shall submit the report to the Government and the Chancellor shall act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Government on a consideration of the report while exercising his powers under this sub-section. (Emphasis is mine) Sub-section (1) of Section 12 which dealt with the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor made it clear that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11, the Vice- Chancellor shall hold the office for a term of three years from the date of his appointment. Sub-section (2) thereof made it clear that the Vice Chancellor shall be paid such pay and allowances from time to time and shall also be provided with a furnished accommodation subject to payment of 10% of salary towards rent. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 conferred power on the State Government to appoint a person to be In-charge Vice-Chancellor where the Vice-Chancellor is unable to exercise his powers or perform his functions or discharge his duties owing to absence, illness or any other cause. Section 13 specified the powers and functions of the Vice- Chancellor. Section 17 has defined various authorities of the University. The Executive Council is one of the authorities so specified. Section 18 dealt with the composition of the Executive Council and the manner of its constitution. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 reads as under: “18(3) - The Executive Council shall meet atleast once in three months and may meet often if necessary.” Section 19 laid out the powers and duties of the Executive Council. Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (5) thereof, since will have some impact upon the controversy, it would be appropriate to quote them. They read as under: “19(3) to enter into, vary, carry out and cancel contracts on behalf of the University in the exercise of performance of the powers and duties assigned to it by this Act and the Statutes; “19(5) - subject to such Statutes as may be prescribed in this behalf:- (i) to appoint the teachers of the University below the rank of lecturers; (ii) to appoint the teachers of the University and above the rank of lecturers on the recommendations of the Section Committee constituted for the purpose : Provided that the Executive Council may invite any person of high academic distinction and professional attainments to accept post of Professor in the University and appoint him to that post : Provided further that if the Board of Management rejects the selections made by the Selection Committee, the matter shall be referred by the University to the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final : (iii) to fix emoluments of the teachers of the University and define their duties and conditions of service; Thus, the multimember body, called the Executive Council has been conferred the power to enter into any contracts on behalf of the University and it is the Executive Council, which has got the power to appoint various teachers. The Vice Chancellor is one of the members of the Executive Council. He shall act as it’s Chairman. But, he was not granted any powers by Section 13, to make any appointments of teachers in the service of the University. On the contrary, Sub-section (3) read with Sub-section (5) of Section 19 conferred such powers only on the Executive Council. Therefore, there appears to be some justification, as at present advised, in the criticism that the petitioner has violated these mandatory provisions, warranting action to be initiated against her in terms of Section 11 of the Universities Act. The all important question that engages the attention in this regard is whether the Vice Chancellor is entitled to an opportunity of making a representation against removal from office or not ? Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Universities Act, rendered it abundantly clear that it is the Chancellor, who has the power to appoint the Vice Chancellor. Consequently, he acquires the power for removing the Vice Chancellor from the said office as well. Further, Section 10 of the Universities Act, conferred power on the Chancellor to annul any proceeding of the University, which is not in conformity with the Provisions of the said Act or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder. However, the Proviso to Section 10 of the Universities Act, made it amply clear that before making any such order, the Chancellor was required to give a notice, calling upon the University to show cause why such an order should not be annulled. When we contrast the contents of Section 10 to that of the contents of Sub-section (2) of Section 11, strikingly, a similar provision relating to the pre-decisional hearing, has been omitted by the Statute maker in Sub-section (2) of Section 11. But however, a proper analysis of the contents of Sub-section (2) of Section 11, does not appear to have excluded totally or completely the applicability of the principles of natural justice in the matter of removal of Vice Chancellor from the office. The last limb of Sub-section (2) of Section 11, holds the key to unravel the scheme in this regard. The expression, “……………….. the Vice Chancellor shall have an opportunity of making his representation against such removal”, to my mind, makes it clear that the applicability of principles of natural justice have not been excluded from the scheme and on the other hand, an opportunity of making a representation against removal is very much contemplated by the Statute. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that this part of the Provision contained in Sub-section (2) must be read with the immediately preceding words, namely, “……………… by such a person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, appointed by the Chancellor, does not merit acceptance. Let us assume that the Chancellor had considered it appropriate to get any allegation made against the Vice Chancellor to be investigated or enquired into by a person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court, at that stage, the question of removal of the Vice Chancellor from the said office is out of his contemplation. The Chancellor would have certain material before him making out only a prima facie case, warranting an enquiry by such a person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. Such an Enquiring Authority would have a limited brief, namely, to return a finding as to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations thrown against the Vice Chancellor in office. Such a person is not the appointing authority to order for removal of the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, he will not be concerned about the consequences that might flow from his findings. Since, his assignment would be to gather all the relevant facts and material, he would be complying with the principles of natural justice in the process of collection of such material by providing every opportunity, fair and reasonable in content and context, to the person against whom allegations are being investigated. It is the ultimate findings of such an investigation, which form a platform or basis for the follow up action of removal of the Vice Chancellor from office. Till such time, the very notion of removal of the Vice Chancellor is out or reckoning. Therefore, it should be construed that the Statute has intended to provide for an opportunity to the Vice Chancellor to make a representation against removal from office as and when the same is contemplated. Otherwise, the last portion of Sub- section(2) does not have any meaningful effect. It is well to remember the legal principle that no part of a Statute, Provision or words employed therein, should be construed as redundant or unnecessary. Every part of a Statute, Provision and every word or expression contained therein, must be construed as the end product of a great deliberation before the same has transformed itself into a Statute. They are intended to serve a purpose. Therefore, I concede, in principle, that an opportunity to make a representation against removal, is required to be provided to the Vice Chancellor and hence, I reject the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General in this regard. It can also be looked at from a different perspective. If the Chancellor is required to annul any of the proceedings of the University the proviso to Section 10 makes it obligatory upon him to provide an opportunity to the University. But, when he seeks to take a far drastic action of ordering for the removal of the Vice Chancellor, it would be incomprehensible to visualize of an omission of such an opportunity. Hence, I hold that the Vice Chancellor is entitled to have an opportunity to