7w ’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. (5) NO. . Q’Jrdg /2010 Dr. A.D.Yaduraj, aged about 57 years Son of Late D. R. Yaduraj, Section Officer (UNDER SUSPENSION) Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur (C.G.) Resident of Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur Through Registrar, Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur (C.G.) University Campus, KONI, BILASPUR (C.G.). Vice Chancellor, . Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur. Union of India, through Department of Human Resources Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. Registrar, Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur (C.G.). . State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS Z . @ Writ Petition under articte 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warrranto or anv other similar writ or direction Present: Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30/3/2010 (Annexure y the petitioner has been placed under suspension on account 'of certain incidence, which le 11/5/2010 and furth (Annexure P-2). elevant for adjudication of this case is 2. The brief facts in nutsheil r /2/2010, the AP 1 V 3 TICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HLGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S). N0. 2543 OF 2010 PETITIONER g Dr. A.D.Yaduraj VERSUS RESPONDENTS '. Guru Ghasidas Central University & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER AR ’hle Shri Satish K. A nihotri B: Ho Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 1, for the respondent No.3. dent No.5 2 & 4. Shri Anand Verma, Advocate Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respon ORDER sORAL) (Passed on 14th day of July, 2010) P-I), Whereb d to issue of charge sheet on er quashing of the charge sheet dated 11/5/2010 that on the alleged incidence which took place on 20 petitioner was placed under suspension by the Registrar (Officiating) the charge sheet based on and Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, several allegations to initiate departmental enquiry was issued by the Registrar (Officiating) and Disciplinary Authority on 11/5/2010 (Annexure P—Z). Shri Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension order as well as charge sheet have been .\ \ \ J. S n issued without authority of law as Registrar (Officiating/ In—charge) is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension and further issue a charge sheet to initiate departmental proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the Registrar who is holding a substantial post alone is competent to issue a charge sheet. It was further contended that the charge sheet was issued under provisions of Central Universities Act, 2009 (for short " the Act, 2009) read with Statute 31 Part 5 and Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short " the Rules, 1966”). ‘Shri Bakshi further submits that memo dated 5/7/1961 issued by Government of M.P., General Administration Department (Annexure P-l7) clearly provides that the statutory functions attached to any designated post can be performed only by a person holding a post so designated and not by one appointed to hold current charge of the duties of that post. Thus, since there is no substantial Registrar in office and the Registrar at present was working as officiating or in-charge Registrar, he cannot exercise the power of Registrar for the purpose of placing the petitioner under suspension and further for the purpose of initiating departmental enquiry on issuing charge sheet. Shri Bakshi, further submits that all allegations made in the charge sheet are baseless and contrary to the facts. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. l, 2 & 4 submits that the respondent University is a Central University as constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2009. Clause 6 (4) of the Statutes of the University framed under Section 27 of the Act, 2009 provides that when the office of the Registrar is vacant or when the Registrar is, by reasons of illness, absence or any other cause, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such person as the Vice-Chancellor may appoint for the purpose. In the case on hand, in absence of the Registrar, by order dated 5/9/2009 (Annexure P—12) passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Shri H.N.Choubey was appointed as Registrar (Officiating) specifically mentioning that he would perform all the functions of Registrar. Thus,‘ there was a specific order to perform all the functions including taking disciplinary action against the employee. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Registrar is not competent to act as disciplinary authority of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal of the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the respondent University was established and incorporated under the provisions of Act, 2009. Accordingly, first Statute of the University was pronounced and clause 6(4) empowers the Registrar including any person to perform the duties of the office of the Registrar as may be appointed by the Vice Chancellor for the purpose. “Statute: 6(4): When the office of the Registrar is vacant or when the Registrar is, by reason of illness, absence or any other cause, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such person as the Vice- Chancellor may appoint for the purpose.” Thereafter, by order dated 5/9/2009, Shri H.N.Choubey was appointed as officiating Registrar to perform all the duties of the Registrar. Order dated 5/9/2009 reads as under : _;m;_ WW W W 11e/wl/uw ’ /?g.?1/2009 W W 05092009 a?) gm W $0 EM? W 0% w WW1 @I W§§w$mwm W$mm 05092009 E0UWEH£I W $m W W € W 1%? WQWWwmww%— 01m th$ arm WW$W WWWW$W£IWW$ WW%HWI wen—WW $0WQH€0€IW W$w1§mwm W$W$WWI 03.W$W8§‘IQ$I§%Wwm W$WOWN®WWO WWW®WW%§H <WIWWWWWI W w/— w—W (93W) c So far as contention in regard to the allegation of charges are concerned, it cannot be examined at this stage as the matter is pending consideration before the departmental enquiry; The petitioner may very well raise all the issues before the departmental enquiry officer or disciplinary authority at an appropriate time. 8. The third contention of the petitioner that the charges have been issued under provisions of the Rules, 1966 and the same does not provide for conferring the power on the officers who is holding . current charge of the duties is noticed to be rejected, firstly the charge sheet states that the charges have been framed under provisions of Central Universities Act read with Statute and Civil