SUSIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE v. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA — 1982 DIGILAW 64 (CAL)

B. C. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained against the charge sheet issued by the Registrar, Calcutta University, respondent no. 4, alleging various acts and/or irregularities in the matter of payments and also tampering of certain bills. This charge sheet has been assailed in this writ application on the ground that the same was issued by an officer not authorized under the Act to issue the same and also that the said charge sheet does not accompany statement of allegations whereon the charges are based and also on other allegations. On16. 9. 80 after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner an interim order was made in terms of prayer (d) of the petition for two weeks and the petitioner was directed to serve copies of the application on respondent nos. 1, 2, and 4. On 19. 9. 80 the interim order was varied after hearing the learned lawyers for all the parties to the extent that status quo as on this day be maintained. On 1. 10. 80 after hearing the learned Advocate for both the parties the prayer of the petitioner for amending the petition by incorporating necessary prayers was allowed and certain directions were made. Finally on 9. 7. 81 after hearing both the parties the instant Rules were issued and there was an interim order to the effect that the enquiry officer will complete the enquiry and submit his report before the disciplinary authority not later than ten weeks from 30. 7. 81 and within three weeks the disciplinary authority will pass final order in the matter. The disciplinary authority after passing the final order will serve a copy on the petitioner. The final order shall not be given effect to until further order of this Court. In accordance with this order final order of dismissal of the petitioner from his service was made by the Vice Chancellor, Calcutta University respondent no. 2, sometime in Septemted as Sports Officers in the Calcutta annexure B to the A. O. sworn by respondent no. 4 on 18. 12. 81. ( 2 ) THE salient facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Sports Officer in the Calcutta University on 29. 1. 2, sometime in Septemted as Sports Officers in the Calcutta annexure B to the A. O. sworn by respondent no. 4 on 18. 12. 81. ( 2 ) THE salient facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Sports Officer in the Calcutta University on 29. 1. 70 and he was confirmed in the post of Sports Officer by a resolution of the Syndicate at its meeting held in September 1970 and this was communicated to the petitioner by the then Assistant Registrar by a letter dated 5. 1. 71. This letter has been annexed as annexure A to the petition. Thereafter sometime in 1972 the Syndicate on the basis of the power conferred upon it by the Calcutta University Act 1966, created a full-time post of Programme Co-ordinator on a temporary basis within National Service Scheme (N. S. S.) with Fund placed at the disposal of the Calcutta University. Towards the end of 1972 the petitioner was taken in as a Programme Co-ordinator of the said National Service Scheme of the Calcutta University and he took over charge of the new office on 12. 12. 72. On that day the petitioner by a letter addressed to respondent no. 2 requested him to maintain his lien to the post Sports Officer of the Calcutta University while he joined his new post of Programme Co-ordinator of N. S. S. This was approved by the Vice-Chancellor as will appear from the letter annexed as annexure B to the petition. The post of Programme Co-ordinator was a purely temporary one the tenure of which now to be extended from time to time. In 1975 the petitioner's tenure of service as a Programme Co-ordinator was extended till the decision of the Syndicate and the petitioner had been continuing as such. The letter to that effect issued by the then Registrar of the Calcutta University dated 23. 6. 75. has been annexed as annexure C to the petition. It has been stated that the petitioner faithfully and with due deligence discharged his duties and responsibilities attached to his post as Programme Co-ordinator and in appreciation of his work the Registrar intimated him by a letter dated 27. 5. 80 that the Vice-Chancellor of the University appreciated his service and according to this desire the Registrar was convening thanks for such good service rendered by the petitioner. 5. 80 that the Vice-Chancellor of the University appreciated his service and according to this desire the Registrar was convening thanks for such good service rendered by the petitioner. This letter has been annexed as annexure D to the petition. Thereafter on 29. 8. 80 a memo was sent by the Registrar, respondent no. 4, alleging charges of certain serious financial irregularities and also acts of gross negligence of duties against him and intimating that Vice-Chancellor has set up an Enquiring committee to enquire into the irregularities and to report to him within one month thereafter. In the said letter it has been further stated that the Vice-Chancellor directed that the petitioner be placed under suspension with immediate effect so as to ensure proper and fair enquiry. This memo, has been annexed as annexure E to the petition. It has been pleaded in the petition by the petitioner that the impugned memo, did not specify or stipulate the particulars about the allegations and charges levelled against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the impugned memo, did not direct the petitioner to answer any charges whatsoever and he has been kept in total darkness as to what specific charge was sought to be levelled against him in respect of which report has to be submitted. It has been further submitted that the petitioner as Programme Co-ordinator has nothing to do with any finance of the University and as such it is fantastic to allege that he was involved in financial irregularities. It has been further submitted that the charge-sheet did not accompany a statement of allegations with the result that it became very difficult for the petitioner to give a proper and effective reply to the alleged charges. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet which has been served in the meantime on the ground of vagueness and also on the ground that those charges were really based on the audit objection raised to which the petitioner duly replied and the same were duly considered by the authorities concerned and sent to the Government. It was thereafter submitted that this audit query could not be the basis of formation of a charge-sheet against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the charge-sheet was issued by the Registrar, respondent no. 4, who is not the disciplinary authority under the Calcutta university Act. It was thereafter submitted that this audit query could not be the basis of formation of a charge-sheet against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the charge-sheet was issued by the Registrar, respondent no. 4, who is not the disciplinary authority under the Calcutta university Act. and the Statutes and Ordinances framed thereunder and as such the charge-sheet is wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction and the impugned proceeding that was drawn on the basis of the said charge-sheet is also invalid and illegal. ( 3 ) ON these statements and allegations and hearing the learned advocates for the parties, as I have said earlier, the instant Rule and the interim order as stated hereinbefore was made by this court. ( 4 ) MR. Chakraborti urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being an officer of the University and/or an employee of the University as a Programme Co-ordinator was appointed by the Syndicate whose power after the supersession of the Calcutta university by the Calcutta University Supersession Act 1978 has been fallen on the Calcutta University Council. It is the appointing authority of the petitioner and as such it is the Syndicate along or for that the Calcutta University Council alone which is the only statutory authority as an appointing authority who can initiate this disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and none else. It has been submitted that he order of placing the petitioner under suspension framing of charge-sheet against the petitioner and appointment of enquiring officer on this basis and the enquiry report submitted by the enquiring officer as well as the final order made by the Vice-Chancellor who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner are all illegal, invalid and contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act, Ordinances and Statutes. It has, therefore, been submitted that the entire proceedings commencing from the order of suspension and ending with the order of termination his service should be quashed and set aside, because the said proceeding is wholly unauthorized and without a legal foundation at all. Relevant provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 and Calcutta University Ordinances, 1966 were placed before this Court in support of these submissions. ( 5 ) IT has been next submitted by Mr. Relevant provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 and Calcutta University Ordinances, 1966 were placed before this Court in support of these submissions. ( 5 ) IT has been next submitted by Mr. Chakraborti that there is no occasion nor any justification for the Vice-Chancellor to exercise his emergency power in placing the petitioner under suspension, more so when the meeting of the Syndicate was fixed to be held just an hour or so after the order was made on the same day. Mr. Chakraborti submitted that to invoke the provisions of section 9 (6) of the Act for exercise of emergency power condition precedent must be satisfied, that is, in this particular case, there is no possibility for the Calcutta University Council to consider this matter and the placing of the petitioner under suspension is so urgent or emergent in public interest that it cannot wait for the time that will be required for holding and/or convening a meeting of the Calcutta University Council, Unless the condition precedent is satisfied, or in other words the non existence of the circumstances justifying exercise of the emergency power, the order made by respondent no. 2 placing the petitioner under suspension by invoking the aid of section 9 (6) is wholly illegal unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of the Act and so it is liable to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) IT has been next submitted by Mr. Chakraborti that the charges which are based on the audit objections were raised sometime in 1975 and several years have passed the University authorities did not think fit to take any steps in this matter, and after about 5 years or 6 years suddenly the Vice-Chancellor respondent no. 2, issued this charge-sheet and also placed the petitioner under suspension. It has also been submitted by Mr. Chakraborti that the charge are vague and indifinite and the amount involved is negligible and as such the order of termination that has been made on the basis of these charges is not a proper order. It has been further submitted that the charge of tempering on which finding has been arrived at by the enquiring officer in his report, was not to be found in any of the charges, still then the enquiring officer has come with a definite finding against the petitioner as guilty of tempering. Mr. It has been further submitted that the charge of tempering on which finding has been arrived at by the enquiring officer in his report, was not to be found in any of the charges, still then the enquiring officer has come with a definite finding against the petitioner as guilty of tempering. Mr. Chakraborti, therefore, submitted that if this aspect is considered the punishment that has been awarded requires to be considered again, Mr. Chakraborti also submitted that the enquiry officer's finding is vitiated by bias and closed mind inasmuch as in his report he has expressed the opinion about the punishment, or in other words, indicated and came to a finding of the guilt of the petitioner on the alleged charges. Therefore on the ground of bias and closed mind the enquiry report which has been accepted by respondent no. 2 and the order of dismissal from service so made, are also liable to be quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) MR. Gupta, Additional Advocate General has submitted in the first place that the petitioner is not an officer within the meaning of section 6 (6) read with section 23 (1) (ix) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. Mr. Gupta has submitted that he Syndicate has been given the power by this section to appoint teachers and officers and employees of the University and by clause (x) of that section the Syndicate has been conferred the power to suspend, discharge or otherwise punish in accordance with the Statutes and Ordinances, Section 6 (6), it has been submitted by Mr. Gupta, has specified the officers of the University and in sub-Section (6) it has been mentioned that persons holding such other post as may be declared by the Statutes to be posts of officers of the University, In this connection Mr. Gupta also placed the provision of section 20 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. In section 20 (1) (ii) it is stated to create a University professorship, readership, lecturership and other posts necessary. Referring to this provision Mr. Gupta submitted firstly that the petitioner does not fall within the category of officer as envisaged u/s. 6 (6) read with section 23 (1) (ix) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. In section 20 (1) (ii) it is stated to create a University professorship, readership, lecturership and other posts necessary. Referring to this provision Mr. Gupta submitted firstly that the petitioner does not fall within the category of officer as envisaged u/s. 6 (6) read with section 23 (1) (ix) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor who has the power of general control and supervision of other officers of the University except the Chancellor, u/s 9 (4) of the Act can in exercise of his supervisory power and also power of general control place an employee like the petitioner under suspension as has been done in this case. The order cannot be challenged as bad being without jurisdiction or contrary to the provisions of the Act. It has been further submitted that even if it is held that the power of appointing the petitioner is in the Syndicate or for that the Calcutta University Council, still then the Vice-Chancellor in view of the provisions of section 9 (4) read with section 9 (6) can exercise his power. The Vice-Chancellor after passing the order of suspension as well as the order of termination of the petitioner from service, placed both the orders before the Calcutta University Council and the Calcutta University Council approved the same. Therefore, there was nothing wrong or irregular or illegal in the impugned order made, and as such the impugned order of suspension as well as termination of service should not be interfered with by this Court. ( 8 ) IT has been next submitted by Mr. Gupta that though some of the charges do not specifically speak of tampering yet the general trend of these charges are in effect charges of tempering and as such the finding of the enquiry officer cannot be held to be bad on this count. It has been further submitted in this connection that there are some charges of tampering against the petitioner and finding has been made against the petitioner at least on those charges. Therefore, even if the findings on other charges regarding tampering is considered bad still then the impugned order should not be interfered with because of the findings of the enquiry officer on the charges of tampering in respect of some of the charges. Therefore, even if the findings on other charges regarding tampering is considered bad still then the impugned order should not be interfered with because of the findings of the enquiry officer on the charges of tampering in respect of some of the charges. Reference has been made in this connection by the learned Additional Advocate General to the case of Bidya Bhusan Mahapatra reported in AIR 1963 SC 779 . The last submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is that in view of the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer in respect of a large number of charges even it here is some irregularity in the matter of drawing up the disciplinary proceeding as well as of making orders relating thereto the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service should not be interfered with by the Court. ( 9 ) THE most vital point that requires to be considered in determining this case is whether the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner by respondent no. 2, the Vice Chancellor of the Calcutta University, is in accordance with the provisions of the statute or not. In other words, whether the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by a person who is not the appointing authority as well as not the disciplinary authority in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta University. First Ordinance, 1966 and the Calcutta University Act, 1966. It is relevant to mention here that on the supersession of the Calcutta University by the Calcutta University Act, 1978 all the powers of all other authorities such as the Syndicate, Senate, University Council. To decide this question it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. Section 4 (13) empowers the University to create posts as and when required of officers and employees of the University besides those provided for in this Act. Section 6 of the said Act as quoted 2 earlier specifies the officers of the University and sub-section (6) of that section clearly lays down that besides these officers persons holding such other posts as may be declared by Statutes to be posts of officers of the University Section 20 (1) (ii) confers upon the Senate the power to create and institute professorships, readerships, lecturerships and other posts necessary for the establishment of the Colleges, institutions, libraries, laboratories and museums referred to in clause (i ). Section 23 deals with the power of the Calcutta University Syndicate. Sub-section (1) clause (ix) of that section clearly confers upon the Syndicate the power to appoint teachers, officers and employees of the University. Clause (x) of the said sub-section (1) of section 23 also confers upon the Syndicate the powers to suspend, discharge or in other words, punish in accordance with the statutes and ordinance officers and employees of the University as are app ointed by the Syndicate. Statute 3 of the first statute declares certain posts mentioned therein as posts of officer of the Calcutta University. Ordinance 2 of the Ordinances relating to the terms and conditions of service of officers and employees of the University states that for the purpose of these ordinances the employees of the University are classified as follows :- (1) officers of the University ; (2)employees ranking between officers and superintendent, etc. ( 10 ) THESE are the relevant provisions dealing with the officers, teachers and employees of the University. On a conspectus of these provisions of the Act as well as the statute and the ordinances it is clear and apparent that the Syndicate is empowered under the statute to create posts of officers, teachers and employees of the University other than these provided in clause (vii) of section 23 (1) as provided in clause (viii) sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. It is also evident from clause (ix) of that section that Syndicate has been conferred the authority to appoint officers and employees of the University and to define their duties and other terms and conditions of service in accordance with the statute and ordinances. Clause (x) also authorizes the Syndicate to suspend, discharge or otherwise punish in accordance with the statute and ordinances such officers and employees of the University as are appointed by the Syndicate. Therefore, it is clear and there is no iota of doubt that the Syndicate is empowered to create posts of officers and employees and to appoint officers and employees and also to take disciplinary measures against such officers and employees in accordance with the statutes and the ordinances. Therefore, it is clear and there is no iota of doubt that the Syndicate is empowered to create posts of officers and employees and to appoint officers and employees and also to take disciplinary measures against such officers and employees in accordance with the statutes and the ordinances. In the instant case undoubtedly it is evident from the minutes of the Syndicate that the post of Programme Co-ordinator in the National Service Scheme was created by the Syndicate and the Syndicate also approved the appointment to be made in the said post of Progamme Co-ordinator for one year for the present. This is evident from the minutes or the Syndicate dated 10. 10. 72. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed by the Syndicate as Programme Co-ordinator. It is also apparent that this fact was well known to the respondent no. 2 as will be evident from the memorandum no. R (M) (2) 35 dated 29. 9. 80. issued by the Registrar intimating the petitioner about the order of suspension made by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner as well as from annexure J to the supplementary affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 2. 11. 81 where respondent no. 2 the Vice Chancellor directs the Registrar to place the order of suspension made by him before the Calcutta University Council. This is also further confirmed by the order of termination made by the Vice Chancellor (respdt. No. 2) and annexed as annexure B to the affidavit in opposition sworn by Pratip Kumar Mukherjee, Registrar of the Calcutta University (respondent no. 4) on 18. 12. 81 where it has been specifically stated that the order has been made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Vice Chancellor under section 9 (6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. Furthermore, the petitioner who was first appointed sometime in 1970 as a Sports Officer in the Calcutta University by the Syndicate and his appointment was confirmed by a resolution of the Syndicate dated 25. 9. 70 (as item no. 73 of the agenda of 11. 9. 70 ). In this connection, of course, the learned counsel for the University of Calcutta handed over a letter dated 15. 10. 69 issued under the signature of the Registrar (respondent no. 4) which merely intimates the petitioner that he has been appointed to the post of Sports Officer on a salary mentioned therein. 9. 70 ). In this connection, of course, the learned counsel for the University of Calcutta handed over a letter dated 15. 10. 69 issued under the signature of the Registrar (respondent no. 4) which merely intimates the petitioner that he has been appointed to the post of Sports Officer on a salary mentioned therein. This does not go to show that the appointment was made by any authority other than the syndicate. Therefore, on a consideration of all these facts I am constrained to hold that the petitioner was appointed as a Sports Officer in 1970 by the syndicate and he was also appointed in the post of Programme Co-ordinator under the National Scheme by the Syndicate and not by the Vice Chancellor (respondent no. 2), as tried to be contended on behalf of the Calcutta University. Therefore, it is now settled that the appointing authority alone and no other authority is competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and for that to pass orders whether of suspension or of dismissal as well as framing of charges and serving them on the petitioner, appointing enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed asking the delinquent to give his reply to the charges are all to be done by the appointing authority or in other words the disciplinary authority and none else. The argument that has been advanced on behalf of the University that since section 9 (4) empowers the Vice Chancellor to exercise general central and supervision over all officer of the University except the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor (respondent no. 2) is competent legally to initiate disciplinary proceeding and to place the petitioner under suspension and also to issue charge sheet against him and to pass finally the order of dismissal from service against the petitioner is not sustainable. I am unable to accept this contention because in my opinion if that be so then the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 9 will be rendered redundant and/or meaningless and/or nugatory. Furthermore the Vice Chancellor has been wasted with powers to hear and decide appeals against orders made by the disciplinary authority as evident from section 9 (4) of the said Act. I fail to understand why the framers of the statute should provide for exercise of emergent powers by the Vice Chancellor where exigency of situation requires him to do so in section 9 (6 ). I fail to understand why the framers of the statute should provide for exercise of emergent powers by the Vice Chancellor where exigency of situation requires him to do so in section 9 (6 ). It is the golden rule of interpretation of statues that while interpreting the statutes all the provisions of the statute have to be given a harmonious meaning, nothing should be excluded, nothing should be imported therein unless and until and if in giving such a harmonious meaning it appears that it leads to an anomalous and an ambiguous position. Here in this case, in my opinion, all these provisions of section 9 have to be given an interpretation if all the provisions of this section are harmoniously fitten in. Viewed from that aspect it is clear and apparent that the power of suspending, of initiating disciplinary proceeding, of dismissing and/or discharging and/or punishing any officer or employee appointed by the syndicate can only be exercised in a case where such an emergency arises that the time that will be required for convening a meeting of the Calcutta University Council will cause great prejudice and will seriously effect the interest of the Calcutta University and to make provisions for such an emergent situation sub-section (6) of sec. 9 has been brought into the statute book. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that by virtue of the power of supervision and control given to the Vice Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor disregarding specifically the provisions conferring specific powers on the syndicate i. e. , the Calcutta University Council in this case to create posts of officers and employees under the University, to appoint officers and employees under the University and to suspend and/or otherwise punish such officers and employees of the University in accordance with the ordinance and the statutes can exercise the powers of the syndicate or for that the Calcutta University Council where no emergency exists justifying exercise of such powers. ( 11 ) IT is pertinent to consider in this connection the other argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that section 17 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 empowers the Pro Vice Chancellor and the Registrar subject to the provision of sub-section (4) of section 9 the power of supervision and control over all officers and employees serving in the departments under their charges and to exercise such disciplinary powers as may be conferred on them by or under this Act, that the Registrar is competent to initiate a disciplinary proceeding and also to submit a charge sheet as has been done here. This argument on close scrutiny of provisions of section 17 will fall through immediately and in no time. On a close scrutiny of the provisions of section 17 which clearly provides that the exercise of such disciplinary power as may be conferred on them by or under this Act by the Registrar, question is has this Act conferred on the Registrar power to initiate disciplinary proceeding or to exercise any disciplinary power against an officer appointed by the syndicate. The answer is no. Therefore, this argument is totally devoid of merit and as such it is overruled. ( 12 ) THE next question connected with this is to consider whether the exercise of the emergency power of the Vice Chancellor (respondent no. 2) u/s 9 (6) is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Undoubtedly the order of suspension as evident from the same which is annexed as annexure J to the supplementary affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 2. 11. 81 has been made on a consideration of the report of the Govt. Audit Department attached to the Calcutta University. This audit report relates to the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 and this was submitted sometime in 1977. Replies to the said audit report were given by the petitioner immediately thereafter and on 29. 8. 80 the respondent no. 2 suddenly thought in his wisdom that the matter is so urgent that there is no single moment to wait for convening a meeting of the Calcutta University Council which he is competent to convene on a week's notice to invoke his emergency power under section 9 (6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. 8. 80 the respondent no. 2 suddenly thought in his wisdom that the matter is so urgent that there is no single moment to wait for convening a meeting of the Calcutta University Council which he is competent to convene on a week's notice to invoke his emergency power under section 9 (6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. It is more surprising that on the same day, I am told that only five minutes after the impugned order of suspension was made the meeting of the Calcutta University Council was held and this particular objection was voiced by one of the members of the Calcutta University Council. This will be evident from annexure A to the supplementary affidavit in reply sworn by the petitioner on 18. 12. 81. This note of dissent was submitted as item no. 1 of the agenda of the meeting of the Council dated 6. 11. 81 by Shri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty, a member of the Council. It has also been stated there that the report submitted by the enquiry officer on the basis of which the order of dismissal was made was not circulated to the members nor shown to any one in spite of being reminded to do so and in spite of an assurance in the affirmative on 6. 11. 81 when the consideration of the item was postponed sue motu by the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, in these circumstances sitting in Equity Court I am unable to accept any sort of argument justifying the exercise of emergency power by the Vice Chancellor u/s 9 (6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. It is now a well settled position from the decision of the Supreme court starting from Barium Chemicals case reported in A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 295 and other cases reported in A. I. R 1969 S. C. 707 at 719, para 39 A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 2233 at 2336 para 12, A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 818 that even powers which are conferred to be exercised on a subjective satisfaction of a particular officer the condition precedent must exist. In this case in order to avail of the provisions of section 9 (6) of the said Act there must be existence of compelling circumstances justifying the exercise of emergency power by the Vice Chancellor. In this case in order to avail of the provisions of section 9 (6) of the said Act there must be existence of compelling circumstances justifying the exercise of emergency power by the Vice Chancellor. From the circumstances recited hereinbefore I am unable to hold that germane and relevant circumstances existed which became imperative for the respondent no. 2 to invoke the aid of his emergency power conferred u/s 9 (6) of the Act on him. Therefore, in my opinion the impugned order suspending the petitioner by invoking his emergency power u/s 9 (6) is entirely illegal, unwarranted and invalid. The charge-sheet, even if it is assumed, though it does not appear from the charge-sheet itself, that it was made by the Vice Chancellor still then the Vice Chancellor being not the disciplinary authority, the charge sheet (annexure J to the petition) is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and unauthorized and as such it is an invalid charge-sheet. If it is taken to be the charge-sheet issued by the Registrar I have already said section 17 of the Act does not empower the Registrar dehorns the provisions of the Act to issue such a charge-sheet upon an employee or an officer like the petitioner who has been appointed by no less an authority than the Syndicate. The entire initiation of the disciplinary proceeding being illegal, bad, de hors the provisions of the Act and so invalid the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service annexed as annexure B to the affidavit in opposition on behalf of respondent no. 4 is also illegal, unauthorized and an invalid order apart from anything else. In these circumstances it is needles to enter into the merits and demerits of the charge sheet, the merits and demerits of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and also the merits and demerits of the order of termination made by the Vice Chancellor. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that as the Vice Chancellor after making the impugned orders placed the matter before the Calcutta University Council which approved it that immediately transforms an illegal order into a legal order. I am sorry, I am unable to accept such a contention. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that as the Vice Chancellor after making the impugned orders placed the matter before the Calcutta University Council which approved it that immediately transforms an illegal order into a legal order. I am sorry, I am unable to accept such a contention. An order and/or a proceeding initiated by an authority having no jurisdiction under the Act, Statute and Ordinances and any order made therein is not only illegal and bad, it is also an invalid order and no stamp of approval can validate an invalid order. Therefore, this submission of the learned Additional Advocate General falls through. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid I make the Rule absolute. Let a Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to the impugned orders of suspension as well as of dismissal from service of the petitioner passed by the respondent no. 2. Let also a Writ of Certiorari be issued directing the respondents to quash, cancel and set aside the impugned orders of suspension and dismissal of the petitioner from service. I am not inclined to make order as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of this order is refused. Rule made absolute.