Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 313 (PAT)

Ganga Prasad Jha v. Vice Chancellor

2001-04-06

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the respondent University and considered the counter affidavit. 2. By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order of suspension, as contained in memo no. 8407-33/2K dated 12.7.2000, passed by respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been put under suspension and their headquarters has been fixed at a place more than 100 k.m. away from the headquarters. A further prayer has also been made for stay of departmental proceeding till the disposal of the criminal case of University Police Station Case No. 51/2000. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the order of suspension is malafide one, as the purported action has been taken by way of vengeance by the University to teach a lesson to the petitioners as they had put a charter of demands for redressal of their grievances. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that for the same set of charges, for which the petitioners have been put under suspension, a criminal case has been also lodged against them in University Police Station Case No. 51/2000, and, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also tried to impress upon the court showing that since the charges in the criminal case and also in the departmental proceeding are one and the same therefore, it would be justiciable to stay the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case. 5. In support of the proposition, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions viz. in the case of C. S. Rowjee and others V/s. Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1964 Supreme Court, 962), in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey V/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others [1989 Patna Law Journal Reports (Supreme Court) 1] and in the case of Ajay Kumar Prasad V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. [2000(4) Patna Law Journal Reports, 303]. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University has opposed the prayer of the petitioners by filing a counter affidavit. It is stated by learned counsel for the University that the petitioners had not peacefully staged the demonstration before the Vice Chancellor, rather they went inside the residence of the Vice Chancellor and damaged the properties kept in the campus of the Vice Chancellor. It is stated by learned counsel for the University that the petitioners had not peacefully staged the demonstration before the Vice Chancellor, rather they went inside the residence of the Vice Chancellor and damaged the properties kept in the campus of the Vice Chancellor. Learned counsel further submits that the act of the petitioners amounted to a misconduct; therefore, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them and they were put under suspension. It is further submitted that for causing loss to the property of the University, a criminal case has been also instituted against the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the order of suspension cannot be said to be malafide. 7. From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the petitioners had gone to the Vice Chancellor with charter of demands and at the same time, they went on rampage and committed mischief by damaging the property of the University. 8. The action of the University at the face of the allegations and the act complained of against the petitioners, in my opinion, does not appear to be malafide. Since the charges levelled against the petitioners appear to be that of misconduct, in my opinion, it would be difficult for this Court to pre-judge the issue saying that the action of the University is malafide. The decision cited by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in this context, therefore, need not be discussed, as the action of the University is not being found to be malafide. 9. So far the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the criminal charge and the disciplinary proceeding are one and the same, and therefore, the departmental proceeding should be stayed till disposal of the criminal charge, is concerned, it would be pertinent to state that whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the court will decide in given circumstances of a particular casewhether disciplinary proceeding should be interdicted pending criminal trial. There can be no hard and fast rule of general application with regard to the particularities of the individual situation. There can be no hard and fast rule of general application with regard to the particularities of the individual situation. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Kusheshwar Dubey V/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others [1989 Patna Law Journal Reports (Supreme Court) 1] and for this reason, the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Prasad V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and others [2000(4) Patna Law Journal Reports 303], in my opinion will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any force in the sub-missions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the respondent University submits that the departmental proceeding, where the charges have been served on the petitioners and the petitioners have answered the charges, shall be disposed of within a period of two months. 11. Considering the facts and cir-cumstances of the case, the respondent University is directed to dispose of the departmental proceeding within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. in the result, this application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation/direction. 13. No order as to costs.