Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1113 (MP)

Pramod Tiwari v. Chancellor, Jnkvv

2012-11-05

RAJENDRA MENON

body2012
JUDGMENT : As common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions and as challenge is made to the orders identical in nature, both these petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience documents available and pleadings in the record of Writ Petition No. 16824/2007 (S) is being referred to in the order. 3. Petitioner-Shri Pramod Tiwari, in W.P. No. 16824/2007, was working as a Sub-Engineer in the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). He has completed more than 20 years of service and it is put forth by him that in his entire period of service no action was taken against him and he has an unblemished service record. According to him he was elected as President of the Vishwa Vidyalaya Karmchari Sangh, the sole recognised association of the employees, for two consecutive terms, i.e., 2000-2002 and 2002-2004. 4. Similarly, petitioner-Rasool Shah, in W.P. No. 16825/2007, was also working in the said University and was posted as Field Extension Officer. He has also completed more than 20 years of service and was elected as Treasurer of the Vishwa Vidyalaya Karmchari Sangh for the same term for which Shri Pramod Tiwari was elected. It is a case of the petitioners that certain officers of the University including the Vice Chancellor had been committed various irregularities. As far as Vice Chancellor of the University is concerned it is stated that due to irregularities committed by him, the Union through its President Shri Pramod Tiwari has filed complaint before the Lokayukta of Madhya Pradesh and due to the aforesaid act it is stated that the University and in particular the Vice Chancellor were having bias and prejudice against the petitioners. It is stated that in view of rampant corruption in the University the office bearers and the petitioners were agitating and on 22-5-2003 to discuss certain problems of the employees with regard to irregularities in the Provident Fund account of the employees, it is stated that a meeting of the office bearers of the University was to be held along with Shri G.S. Marko, Controller of the Finance, it is alleged against the petitioners that on 22-5-2003 while discussing with Shri Marko they behaved in an unbecoming manner, threatened Shri Marko as a result a FIR was lodged by Shri Marko for offences under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the FIR lodged specific allegations were made with regard to activities of the petitioners herein. It is stated that on the basis of complaint submitted by Shri Marko to the University, a Committee was constituted consisting of Dr. V.P. Singh, the then Dean of Veterinary Science, Dr. R.A. Khan, Incharge Registrar of the University, Shri C.K. Tekchandani, Dean College of Agricultural Engineering, Shri S.S. Tomar, Dean Students Welfare; and, one Shri L.N. Verma. The said Committee conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted its report. However, in the meanwhile, the Union submitted a notice of agitation and thereafter certain agitation started in the University pointing out the highhandedness and irregularities of the Management. According to the petitioners, the Committee which was constituted to inquire into the allegations with regard to the incident that took place in the chamber of Shri G.S. Marko on 22-5-2003 so also with regard to certain other incident between the petitioners and one Shri S.K. Tiwari, Deputy Registrar; conducted the enquiry, examined more than 9 witnesses, took the statement of petitioners also and submitted their report vide Annexure P-4 on 12th June, 2003. On the basis of report so submitted by this Committee, both the petitioners were suspended vide order dated 18-6-2003. Thereafter charge-sheets were issued to them under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966"). The charge-sheet issued to the petitioners have been filed by the respondents as Annexure R-10, dated 8th July, 2003. In the charge-sheet, the imputation of allegations pertains to the act of the petitioners in misbehaving with Shri G.S. Marko so also with Shri S.K. Tiwari, Deputy Registrar. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioners have been filed by the respondents as Annexure R-10, dated 8th July, 2003. In the charge-sheet, the imputation of allegations pertains to the act of the petitioners in misbehaving with Shri G.S. Marko so also with Shri S.K. Tiwari, Deputy Registrar. After the charge-sheet was issued, it is the grievance of the petitioners that all of a sudden without conducting any departmental enquiry on the ground that conduct of departmental enquiry is not possible in view of the atmosphere created by the petitioners in the University premises powers were exercised under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966 and the services of the petitioners were terminated without conducting any enquiry. Accordingly, challenging the aforesaid termination order passed under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966 as contained in Annexure P-3, dated 5-8-2003 petitioners have filed these writ petitions. Appeals filed before the Board of Management under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1966 is also dismissed vide Annexure P-2 and a review petition filed before the Chancellor of the University namely the Governor having also been dismissed on 12-11-2007, therefore, petitioners have approached this Court challenging all the three orders as indicated hereinabove, which are filed as Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3. 5. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and the reasons given by the Vice Chancellor for dispensing with the enquiry, argued that the reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry is that threats were extended by the petitioners to the officers who were to conduct departmental enquiry and to the witnesses. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned Counsel emphasised that three reasons have been given in the order (Annexure P-3), dated 5-8-2003 for dispensing with the enquiry. They are : that the enquiry officers who are appointed in the matter have refused to conduct an enquiry due to the threat extended to them by the petitioners. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned Counsel emphasised that three reasons have been given in the order (Annexure P-3), dated 5-8-2003 for dispensing with the enquiry. They are : that the enquiry officers who are appointed in the matter have refused to conduct an enquiry due to the threat extended to them by the petitioners. The second ground was that petitioners are threatening and intimidating the witnesses and, therefore, the witnesses are not coming forward to give their statements in the departmental enquiry, and finally it is said that due to the agitation undertaken by the petitioners' and the employees Union after the petitioners were suspended a tense and violent situation has been created in the University, due to which conduct of the departmental enquiry is not practicable and therefore, the power is exercised under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966. Shri Arvind Shrivastava emphasised that the aforesaid reasons given are not at all proper. It is only an excuse for somehow dismissing the petitioners without conducting an enquiry. Shri Arvind Shrivastava took me through the proceedings held in the preliminary enquiry conducted by five Senior Officers of the University and argued that when the preliminary enquiry was conducted, more than 9 witnesses were examined and based on the report submitted by the preliminary enquiry Committee as contained in Annexure P-4, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioners after suspending them. In the charge-sheet, the main allegations against the petitioners were with regard to two incidents that have taken place. The first incident took place on 20th of May, 2003 in the chamber of Shri G.S. Marko and the second incident took place on 22-5-2003 involving Shri G.S. Marko and Shri S.K. Tiwari, Deputy Registrar. With regard to both these incidents, preliminary enquiry was conducted and it is based on the preliminary enquiry-report that the charge-sheet was issued. Petitioners denied the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet and thereafter no orders were passed appointing an Enquiry Officer. Surprisingly, three persons, who are said to have been appointed as Enquiry Officers, are alleged to have expressed their inability to conduct the enquiry. Shri Shrivastava invites my attention to Annexure R-16, dated 30th July, 2003 submitted by Dr. M.C. Agrawal; the communication (Annexure R-17), dated 29-7-2003 by Dr. Surprisingly, three persons, who are said to have been appointed as Enquiry Officers, are alleged to have expressed their inability to conduct the enquiry. Shri Shrivastava invites my attention to Annexure R-16, dated 30th July, 2003 submitted by Dr. M.C. Agrawal; the communication (Annexure R-17), dated 29-7-2003 by Dr. V.K. Agrawal and the communication dated 30th July, 2003 by Shri R.P.S. Baghel (Annexure R-18) and argued that-all the three persons have indicated that they are appointed as Enquiry Officer and they are unable to conduct the enquiry. Referring to the communications made by them as contained in Annexures R-16, R-17 and R-18, Shri Arvind Shrivastava emphasised that the order of appointment of Enquiry Officer as referred to in these three letters is dated 29th July, 2003, all the three persons have been appointed on the same date and all of them refused to conduct the enquiry on the ground that they are received threat from the petitioners. It is submitted by Shri Arvind Shrivastava that the orders appointing the Enquiry Officer are not available and after the appointment of three persons on the same date or the next day, i.e., 30-7-2003, they expressed their inability to conduct the enquiry, it is argued that the aforesaid plea of the enquiry officers submitting their letter is nothing but an act of procuring of these letters by the University authorities with a view to create an excuse for not conducting the enquiry and invoking the extraordinary power under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966 on such circumstances which are extraneous in nature and which are not established, action taken is unsustainable. 6. That apart, Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the communications made by the so called witnesses vide Annexures R-11 to R-15 and submits that all these letters are issued between 20th July, 2003 to 30th July, 2003 and by obtaining these letters between the period 20-7-2003 to 30-7-2003 an excuse is created for dispensing with the enquiry. Inter alia contending that the letters have been procured by the University's authority only as an excuse for dispensing with the enquiry. Shri Arvind Shrivastava emphasised that the grounds for dispensing with the enquiry are not available, action is taken in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is unsustainable. Inter alia contending that the letters have been procured by the University's authority only as an excuse for dispensing with the enquiry. Shri Arvind Shrivastava emphasised that the grounds for dispensing with the enquiry are not available, action is taken in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is unsustainable. Shri Arvind Shrivastava thereafter submitted that after the action was taken against the petitioners, they approached the Chancellor of the University namely, the Governor of the State seeking exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 14 of JNKVV Act, it is stated that on the basis of material submitted by the University and the memorandum submitted by the petitioners under Section 14 (Annexure P-8), the Secretariat of the Chancellor, conducted a fact finding enquiry as is evident from note-sheets collectively filed as Annexures P-8 and P-9; in this fact finding enquiry, prima facie finding recorded is that the departmental enquiry has been dispensed with on extraneous consideration and without there being enough material to do so. Shri Shrivastava invites my attention to the note-sheet available vide Annexure P-8 and submits that in all these note-sheets, the findings recorded are that the enquiry has been dispensed with in an illegal manner and therefore, finding the action taken against the petitioner to be contrary to requirement of law a show-cause notice was issued to the University vide Annexure P-10 on 31st August, 2005 by the office of the Chancellor and it was indicated in this show-cause notice that the action taken against the petitioners are illegal and therefore, why the orders of dismissal dated 5-3-2003 be not annulled and set aside. However, after having done so, surprisingly the Secretariat of the Governor's office indicated that it is not a fit case where power under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam should be exercised, and the petitioners were directed to file an appeal. Thereafter petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Management. Appeal filed by the petitioners having been rejected it is stated that petitioners have filed this writ petition, after the review was also dismissed by the Chancellor. Thereafter petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Management. Appeal filed by the petitioners having been rejected it is stated that petitioners have filed this writ petition, after the review was also dismissed by the Chancellor. Shri Arvind Shrivastava took me through various findings recorded in the fact finding enquiry conducted in the office of Chancellor, the reasons given by the Vice Chancellor in the note-sheet and emphasised that reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry are based on the ipse dixit and assumption of the Vice Chancellor and as the action is taken inconsistent to law, the same be interfered with. Shri Arvind Shrivastava submitted that once a charge-sheet was issued and as the allegations in the charge-sheet were serious in nature, proper departmental enquiry should have been conducted and on the grounds as has been put forth the decision for dispensing with the enquiry is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he invites my attention to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sachdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2003 AIR SCW Page 940, and argued that the powers conferred under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966 which is akin to powers available under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without any cogent and justifiable reason being available for dispensing with the enquiry. It is stated that merely on the assumption or ipse dixit of the authority that the atmosphere created is not congenial for conducting an enquiry action cannot be taken. He further invites my attention in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC Page 385, in support of his contention. It is in sum and substance the contention of the petitioner that on the grounds indicated in the order of dismissal and the reasons given therein a case for dispensing with the departmental enquiry is not made out and therefore, the entire action which is tainted with malafide is nothing but an arbitrary and illegal action of the Vice Chancellor, therefore, orders impugned be held to be unsustainable and quashed. 7. 7. Shri P.N. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the University refuted the aforesaid and took me through the documents available on record, note-sheet prepared by the office of Vice Chancellor, advise given by the Legal Advisor of the University and emphasised that initially the petitioners committed misconduct by entering into the chamber of Shri Marko and thereafter Shri S.K. Tiwari and acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an employee and on a prima facie case being made on the basis of preliminary enquiry conducted both the petitioners were suspended vide Annexure R-4 on 18th June, 2003. After they were suspended it is stated that petitioners became violent, started harassing and intimidating all the officers of the University and ultimately the District Administration had to declare the University area as a prohibited area, in spite thereof petitioners and office bearers of the Union started picketing before the residence of the Vice Chancellor, created an atmosphere of tension, threatened and intimidated the officers of the University, particularly the officers who had conducted the departmental enquiry and who were witnesses in the departmental enquiry, they entered the chamber of Shri C.K. Tekchandani on 15th of July, 2003 and threatened him with dire consequence if he tried to interfere with the activities of the petitioners. It is stated that the atmosphere created by the petitioners were so tense and serious that no employee of the University or officer was willing to conduct an enquiry. As a result, it is stated that the action has been taken. Shri P.N. Dubey emphasised that even the police authorities were not co-operative with the University in the matter and taking action against the petitioners, on the FIR lodged, no case was registered and as no action was taken by the police authorities, the University had no option but to proceed with dispensing with the enquiry. It is emphasised by Shri P.N. Dubey that the reasons given by the Vice Chancellor in his impugned order particularly the note-sheets filed by the petitioners as Annexure P-16, the Disciplinary Authority namely the Vice Chancellor has referred to the atmosphere created and as under the said atmosphere and tense situation it was not possible to conduct an enquiry, the act of dispensing with the enquiry is proper and does not call for any interference. It is argued by Shri P.N. Dubey that the petitioners were terrorizing and intimidating not only the Enquiry Officer and witnesses but all who were functioning for the administration of the University and as the situation created was beyond the control of the University the action taken is proper. Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 , and the mandate of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution which is considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and analysing it in the backdrop of the situation created by the petitioners it is argued that in the circumstances it was not reasonably practicable for the University to hold the enquiry and therefore, the enquiry has been dispensed with. It is stated that when the employees and their association were indulging in terrorizing, threatening the witnesses, departmental enquiry into the matter was not practicably possible and therefore, if the principle laid down in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra), is applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, act of the respondents has to be upheld. Further reliance in this regard is placed on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Railway Constructions Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579 . Placing reliance on both these judgments, Shri P.N. Dubey emphasised that law permits for dispensing with an enquiry and take action not only by virtue of provisions contained in Article 311 (2) but also in view of the statutory provisions as is contained in Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966. As the material available in the present case makes out a case for dispensing with an enquiry, no case is made out for interference. It is stated by Shri P.N. Dubey, that once the Disciplinary Authority has satisfactorily analysed the factual situation and has arrived at a decision, the same cannot be subjected to further judicial review by this Court on the ground that it is malafide or that it is not based on the facts which are made out from the record. It is stated by Shri P.N. Dubey, that once the Disciplinary Authority has satisfactorily analysed the factual situation and has arrived at a decision, the same cannot be subjected to further judicial review by this Court on the ground that it is malafide or that it is not based on the facts which are made out from the record. It is stated that material available on record overwhelmingly shows that petitioners were responsible for having created a tense situation and the atmosphere in the University premises was such that conduct of a departmental enquiry was not possible and in such circumstances powers exercised under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966 cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it was argued by Shri P.N. Dubey that it is not a fit case for interference and therefore, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. In rebuttal, Shri Arvind Shrivastava took me again through the material available on record and indicated that in the charge-sheet seven charges were levelled with regard to misbehaviour of the petitioners with Shri G.S. Marko and Shri S.K. Tiwari. Thereafter, when the dismissal orders were issued two more incidents pertaining to the agitation and misbehaviour with Shri C.K. Tekchandani have been added for dispensing with the enquiry, however, with regard to these two subsequent incidents there is no police report, no complaint by the University to any authority, no FIR, no criminal case is registered and therefore, merely on the basis of certain documents procured or manufactured by the University, action taken is nothing but a false and fabricated case made against the petitioners only on paper for dispensing with the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 19 (ii). It is argued by Shri Arvind Shrivastava that based on the documents produced by the University the allegations against the petitioner about intimidating the witnesses or the enquiry officer is not established and therefore, it is not a fit case where the documents can be taken cognizance of and the action upheld. Accordingly, he emphasised that documents adduced is not sufficient enough to make out a case and therefore, he seeks for interference into the matter. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record. Accordingly, he emphasised that documents adduced is not sufficient enough to make out a case and therefore, he seeks for interference into the matter. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record. It is a case where services of the petitioners who have put more than 20 years of service and against whom there is no previous record of misconduct or punishment, brought to the notice of this Court, have been removed for the reasons as indicated hereinabove and while doing so, the normal rule of conducting a departmental enquiry after issuance of charge-sheet as contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 is dispensed with and action is taken by following the extraordinary procedure contemplated under Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966, i.e. by dispensing with the departmental enquiry. That being so, before proceeding to assess the rival contentions based on the material available on record, it is thought appropriate to take note of the law with regard to taking action by invoking the procedure available to the authorities under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1966, and the scope of judicial review in such matters. 10. Article 311 of the Constitution gives protection to an employee and the mandate of the Constitution is that no person can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank until and unless he is convicted in a criminal case or he is proceeded against by conducting an enquiry into the charges levelled against him and action is taken after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after conducting such enquiry as may be required. However, an exception to this normal rule is carved out and Article 311 (2), which contemplates a provision wherein a person can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank even without conducting a departmental enquiry, but before doing so, the Competent Authority is required to record reasons as to why it is not "reasonably practicable" to conduct an enquiry. 11. In accordance to the powers conferred to various authorities under Article 309 of the Constitution, departmental rules have been framed and the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules") have been enacted by the State of M.P. by virtue of the powers conferred under Article 309. 11. In accordance to the powers conferred to various authorities under Article 309 of the Constitution, departmental rules have been framed and the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules") have been enacted by the State of M.P. by virtue of the powers conferred under Article 309. Rule 19 (ii) is akin to the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, and it contemplates a special procedure to be followed in certain cases for taking disciplinary action against a Government servant. Normally, when disciplinary action is to be taken against a Government servant for misconduct and when punishment is to be imposed, a detailed procedure is contemplated under Rule 14 to Rule 18, which has to be followed. Rule 19 is an exception to the normal rule and by this a special procedure to be followed in certain cases are laid down. Sub-rule (ii) of this Rule contemplates that where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry then he may proceed in the matter without conducting any enquiry. The provisions of Article 311 (2) and the Rules akin, i.e., .... Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, have been subject-matter of deliberation, consideration by various Courts, including the Supreme Court. 12. In the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra), the provisions of Article 311 (2), second proviso has been taken note of and the principle for taking action has been laid down in detail by the Supreme Court. It is held by the Supreme Court that for taking action under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, no enquiry is to be conducted, but only recording of reasons by the Competent Authority indicating as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry is to be indicated. It has been held that the condition precedent for invoking this power is the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the practicability of holding the enquiry. It is said that the words used are not "impossible" but only "not reasonably practicable". After taking note of the meaning of the word "reasonably practicable" and difference between this word and the word "impossible", Supreme Court has held that if a situation is created where holding of an enquiry is not "reasonably practicable" the same can be dispensed with. It is said that the words used are not "impossible" but only "not reasonably practicable". After taking note of the meaning of the word "reasonably practicable" and difference between this word and the word "impossible", Supreme Court has held that if a situation is created where holding of an enquiry is not "reasonably practicable" the same can be dispensed with. But, while doing so, care has to be taken that the Rule is applied cautiously and is not applied in a manner so as to dispense with the enquiry and punish an employee bypassing the normal rule. It has been held that when a Government servant is dismissed or reduced in rank by invoking the said provision or analogous provision in the service rule and the aggrieved Government servant approaches the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Court will interfere into the matter if well-established principles governing Rules of judicial review are made out. It has been held that the ground of judicial review into such matter is that the Disciplinary Authority has acted on irrelevant considerations. The satisfaction recorded for dispensing with the enquiry is an abuse of the powers conferred upon it and the action is taken on consideration of irrelevant or matters which are not germane to the question involved. It has been held by the Supreme Court that if the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority is found to be such which a reasonable person would not take under the given se.t of circumstances, interference can be made by the High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be. 13. The question is again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar (supra), relied upon by Shri P.N. Dubey and after reiterating the same principle, it has been held that the power to dismiss an employee by dispensing with an enquiry is not be to be exercised so as to circumvent the prescribed rule. The satisfaction for dispensing with the enquiry should be based on facts which exist and which justify dispensation of the enquiry. The High Court in such cases has to focus and see as to whether judicial review is called for. The satisfaction for dispensing with the enquiry should be based on facts which exist and which justify dispensation of the enquiry. The High Court in such cases has to focus and see as to whether judicial review is called for. It has been found that judicial review in such cases is permissible if the action is found to be based on reasons which are tainted with illegality or irrationality and if there are procedural impropriety. It is held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that for examining as to whether the reasonableness for dispensing with the enquiry has been properly arrived at by the Administrative Authorities or not, it has to be seen whether relevant factors have been taken note of and if it is found that on irrelevant consideration an arbitrary decision has been taken, the decision would fall in the category of illegality or irrationality and, therefore, on such consideration interference can be made. 14. Similar is the principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sachdev Singh (supra), relied upon by Shri Arvind Shrivastava. After taking note of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sachdev Singh (supra), that the Administrative Authorities should support its order for dispensation of enquiry and has to show to the Court that the satisfaction arrived at for dispensation of the enquiry is not based on ipse dixit of the authorities concerned, but is based on certain objective facts and is not at the whims and caprice of the concerned authorities. In Paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the following principle is laid down :- "8. In Paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the following principle is laid down :- "8. The next case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants is of Jaswant Singh (supra), wherein this Court while considering dispensation of an enquiry in departmental proceedings against a Police Officer held that on the facts of that case the departmental enquiry was sought to be dispensed with solely on the ipse dixit of the authority concerned, therefore, this Court held that when such satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned to be proved in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order of dispensation to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer. On the basis of the said principles, on the facts of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that the respondent-State was not able to satisfy the Court as to the existence of material facts from which satisfaction as to the dispensation of enquiry could be arrived at." 15. In the case of Jaswant Singh (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that in a proceeding held before a Competent Court the department is required to disclose to the Court the material on the basis of which action is taken and existence of the material in support of the action taken should show that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at after taking note of relevant factors and not merely on the basis of whims and caprice of the authorities concerned. 16. Apart from the aforesaid judgment, the question has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Hindustan Steel Limited and others Vs. Hindustan Steel Limited and others, AIR 1985 SC 251 . In this case also, dispensation of enquiry was undertaken and a Class IV employee was dismissed from service. After taking note of the principles applicable, it has been held by the Supreme Court that for arriving at a satisfaction for holding that the enquiry was not reasonably practicable, the reason given must be germane to the issue and it is subjected to limited judicial review. After taking note of the principles applicable, it has been held by the Supreme Court that for arriving at a satisfaction for holding that the enquiry was not reasonably practicable, the reason given must be germane to the issue and it is subjected to limited judicial review. The Court would examine whether the action is based on existing facts or whether it is a cloak or device or an excuse to dispense with the enquiry and to impose a punishment. In the said case, the Supreme Court has held that if the Court is satisfied that the action and the reason given for dispensing with the enquiry is prompted by extraneous consideration or is based on material which are not relevant and is a device to circumvent holding of a regular departmental enquiry and to somehow punish the employee concerned, matter should be interfered with and action taken. 17. Similar is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Security Officer and others Vs. Singasdn Rabi Das, AIR 1991 SC 1043 . 18. If the legal principle as is detailed hereinabove is taken note of, it 4 would be seen that the decision taken to say that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the departmental enquiry should be based on material which goes to show that an actual threat or situation is existing which contemplates holding of a departmental enquiry impracticable. 19. That being so, this Court is now required to examine as to what W8£ the reason for dispensing with the enquiry and whether the reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry are borne out from the material available on record or the material adduced and available on record are of such a nature that the reasons given are not properly established or is based on ipse dixit of the authorities and is only a device to somehow circumvent the due process of holding a departmental enquiry ? 20. In this regard, apart from the fact that the reason is given in the impugned order dated 5-3-2003, the decision is taken on the basis of a note-sheet and reasons indicated therein which is filed as Annexure P-16. 20. In this regard, apart from the fact that the reason is given in the impugned order dated 5-3-2003, the decision is taken on the basis of a note-sheet and reasons indicated therein which is filed as Annexure P-16. The Registrar of the University initiated the proceedings against both the petitioners namely, Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Rasool Shah, on 30-7-2003, and submitted to the Vice Chancellor that petitioners-Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Rasool Shah have misbehaved with Shri G.S. Marko, Comptroller; and, Shri S.K. Tiwari, Deputy Registrar in the month of May. A fact finding Committee was constituted to enquire into the misconduct, the Committee has submitted its report on 12-6-2003 and based on the prima facie findings recorded by the Committee, the employees/petitioners have been suspended on 18-6-2003. Thereafter, it is stated that after the suspension order was issued, behaviour of the employees of the University have become very wild and offensive, they have raised a 20 point Charter of Demands. The said Charter was discussed with SDM, Gohalpur Division, Jabalpur on 25-6-2003. The stand of the University was explained, the Members of the Association also participated and the SDM requested them to maintain law and order in the University. In spite thereof, it is stated that Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Rasool Shah have given a call for indefinite relay strike in the University premises with effect from 26-6-2003, and as they are continuing with the relay strike, shouting of slogans and preventing employees from discharging their duties, an atmosphere has been created where the functioning of the University is being adversely affected. Thereafter, the ground taken is that on 15-7-2003 when Dr. Thereafter, the ground taken is that on 15-7-2003 when Dr. C.K. Tekchandani was conducting a meeting in his chamber, at 11.00 a.m. both the petitioners entered his chamber and threatened him by using the following words :- It was stated that after the aforesaid incident, eight letters have been received, which goes to show that Enquiry Officers have indicated their reluctance to conduct the enquiry, witnesses have stated that they are being threatened and intimidated by the petitioners and, therefore, they will not give witness against the petitioner and in view of the above the Registrar recommends that a situation is created which has spoiled the peace of the campus, smooth functioning of the Vishwa Vidyalaya is being hampered and, therefore, he has sought for intervention of the Vice Chancellor and his opinion in the matter. It seems that the Vice Chancellor directed for getting legal advice into the matter and, therefore, the matter was forwarded to the Legal Advisor of the University on 4-8-2003, and the Legal Advisor gave an opinion that the atmosphere created in the University as indicated in the note-sheet prepared by the Registrar on 4-8-2003, shows that the conduct of the departmental enquiry is not possible and, therefore, he gave an opinion that the University can proceed under Rule 19 (ii) of the CCA Rules if the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor so feels. Based on the aforesaid opinion of the Legal Advisor and the note-sheet of the Registrar dated 4-8-2003, the Vice Chancellor directed for dismissal of the petitioners on 5-8-2003. Therefore, it would be seen that the reason for dispensing with the enquiry is the fact that after suspension of the petitioners an atmosphere of terror has been created in the light of an indefinite strike called by the petitioner; the incident involving Dr. C.K. Tekchandani; and, the eight communications received hi the matter of conducting the enquiry or giving evidence by the witnesses. 21. If the aforesaid reasons given are analysed in the backdrop material available, it would be seen that for the allegations levelled in the sheet against the petitioners with regard to the misconduct committed in the matter of dealing with Shri G.S. Marko and Shri S.K. Tiwari, a five-member Enquiry Committee consisting of senior officers of the University was ordered. 21. If the aforesaid reasons given are analysed in the backdrop material available, it would be seen that for the allegations levelled in the sheet against the petitioners with regard to the misconduct committed in the matter of dealing with Shri G.S. Marko and Shri S.K. Tiwari, a five-member Enquiry Committee consisting of senior officers of the University was ordered. The enquiry report is Annexure P-4, dated 12-6-2003 and it shows that in the said enquiry which was conducted from 4-6-2003 upto 9-6-2003, nine witnesses were examined. These witnesses are Shri Gulab Singh Marko; Shri Ramesh Chourasia; Shri R.C. Choubey; Shri J.P. Dubey; Shri O.K. Chawla; Shri K.M. Pillai; Shri R.K. Pyasi; Shri Ram Singh Thakur; and, Shri Babulal Tiwari. Therefore, the petitioners were also examined and the enquiry report is submitted. Till conduct of the enquiry and submi ssion of the report on 12-6-2003 and even during the conduct of the preliminary enquiry between 4-6-2003 to 9-6-2003 there is nothing against the petitioners to show that they have threatened or intimidated any of the witnesses or the persons conducting the enquiry. Dr. C.K. Tekchandani was one of the members conducting the preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, when the petitioners were suspended, the allegation against them is that they called for strike and during the process of strike, they created a situation resulting in breach of law and order, as a result, the entire atmosphere in the University got vitiated. However, with regard to this aspect of the matter except for the note-sheet prepared by the Registrar of the University and the communications made in various letters made by the Registrar to the Vice Chancellor and by the University to the State Government and the Governor, there is no complaint made by the University authorities to the police authorities of the area or the District Administration, no criminal case is registered and no action is taken against the petitioners for breach of law and order during this period by the police authorities. On the contrary, the records indicate that for discussing the 20 point demands and Charter submitted by the petitioners, a Meeting of the University representatives alongwith SDM, Gohalpur was held on 25-6-2003 in the University and the minutes of the meeting (Annexure R-5), dated 25-6-2003 does not show that there is any indication in this to show that the employees or the petitioners are indulging in an act which is alleged against them in the note-sheet. 22. It is surprising that the University complains of petitioners' acting in a manner by taking law into their own hands and creating a tense atmosphere in the University and for the same there is no report, complaint or communication made by the University authorities either to the Superintendent of the Police of the area concerned or to the Collector of the District, pointing out these activities of the petitioners nor is there any other material available on record to show that for these illegal activities any criminal case was registered against the petitioners or that they are creating a law and order situation which has resulted in total breakdown of the administration of the University. That apart, there is no complaint or communication made by any other employee or officer of the University showing that work in the University has been hampered or adversely affected due to the so-called agitation and strike by the petitioners and the employees Union. The only singular document in this regard is a complaint of Dr. C.K. Tekchandani dated 15-5-2003.That being so, apart from the complaint of Dr. C.K. Tekchandani, there is no material available on record to show that on their suspension, the petitioners created an atmosphere in the University, which can be termed as creating a law and order situation or a situation in which conduct of a departmental enquiry is not possible. Such a situation is created by the University on paper, which is not borne out from the actual position as was existing. If that be so, as submitted by Shri Arvind Shrivastava, the University would have made reports to the District Administration, sought for their assistance in maintaining law and order and if such an assistance was sought for the police would have registered criminal acts against the petitioners and proceeded against them. If that be so, as submitted by Shri Arvind Shrivastava, the University would have made reports to the District Administration, sought for their assistance in maintaining law and order and if such an assistance was sought for the police would have registered criminal acts against the petitioners and proceeded against them. There is no material on record to show any such incident took place or any such proceedings were initiated except for declaration of the University as a prohibited area and no other action is taken against the petitioners. 23. That apart, the final material produced for holding that the departmental enquiry is not practicable are the eight communications which are referred to in the note-sheet of the Registrar dated 4-8-2003 and which are filed by the respondents from Annexure R-11 onwards. If these documents are scrutinised it would be seen that out of these eight documents, three letters are written by three Enquiry Officers, who have expressed their unwillingness to conduct enquiry and because of this it is stated that conduct of departmental enquiry is not possible. The first communication is Annexure R-16, dated 30-7-2003. This is a letter written by Dr. M.C. Agrawal, Professor and HOD, Parasitology, it is addressed to the Registrar of the University and it refers to a communication made by the Registrar a day before, i.e............ 29-7-2003. It is indicated by Dr. M.C. Agrawal that with reference to the above letter, he says that he is not interested to act as Enquiry Officer for conducting departmental enquiry against Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Rasool Shah, as he has received threatening calls. It is not known as to how the petitioners can give the threatening calls to Dr. M.C. Agrawal, when he is only appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 29-7-2003, and he has already given his unwillingness to conduct the enquiry on the next date 30:7-2003. 24. Similarly, the next letter is Annexure R-17. This letter is dated 29-7-2003 and in this letter also one Dr. V.K. Agrawal, Professor and HOD, Plant Physiology, refers to a communication made to him on 29-7-2003 and says that he cannot conduct the enquiry because of the threat given by Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Rasool Shah. It is surprising that this Dr. V.K. Agrawal is appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 29-7-2003 and on 29-7-2003 itself he received the threat and refuses to conduct the enquiry. 25. It is surprising that this Dr. V.K. Agrawal is appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 29-7-2003 and on 29-7-2003 itself he received the threat and refuses to conduct the enquiry. 25. Similar is the position with the third Enquiry Officer, one Shri R.P.S. Baghel, HOD, Department of Animal Nutrition and Food Technology, who again on 30-7-2003 submits a letter (Annexure R-18) saying that he is unable to conduct the enquiry and he is also appointed as Enquiry Officer on 29-7-2003. 26. It may be taken note of that except for referring to appointment of Enquiry Officer on 29-7-2003, no order is produced appointing the persons as Enquiry Officer and during the course of hearing of the writ petition, Shri P.N. Dubey simply stated that in a meeting conducted of all the Officers, these persons gave the letters. When, how, under whose instructions the meeting is conducted; what was the necessity for holding such a meeting is not clear; no minutes of such meeting is produced; and, there is no averment with regard to conduct of any such meeting. Under such circumstances, an assumption can be made that the letters with regard to the Enquiry Officers, expressing their inability to conduct the enquiry can be a procured document only to create an excuse for not conducting the enquiry. 27. Similarly, the other five letters may be taken note of. Annexure R-11 is a communication made by Shri V.P. Singh, Dean of the College, who informed the Registrar on 28-7-2003 that he is receiving threatening calls from Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Rasool Shah. Shri V.P. Singh, it is stated is a witness in the enquiry. However, in the charge-sheet issued to the petitioners and in the list of witnesses as indicated hereinabove and in Annexure III, to the charge-sheet, Shri V.P. Singh is not shown as a witness. It is, therefore, not known as to how he is being threatened when he is not even a witness in the departmental enquiry. 28. The next letter (Annexure R-12) is again dated 28-7-2003 and in this letter of Dr. C.K. Tekchandani, he refers to the incident that took place on 15-7-2003. The letter of Dr. C.K. Tekchandani is nothing but a repetition of his complaint dated 15-7-2003. 29. Thereafter, Annexures R-13, R-14 and R-15 are three letters written by Shri G.S. Marko, Shri Ramesh Chourasia and Shri G.K. Chawla. C.K. Tekchandani, he refers to the incident that took place on 15-7-2003. The letter of Dr. C.K. Tekchandani is nothing but a repetition of his complaint dated 15-7-2003. 29. Thereafter, Annexures R-13, R-14 and R-15 are three letters written by Shri G.S. Marko, Shri Ramesh Chourasia and Shri G.K. Chawla. These three persons are witnesses in the departmental enquiry, whose name appear in the list of witnesses and they say that they are receiving threats, therefore, they cannot give evidence in the enquiry. All these letters are issued by them on 28-7-2003, 30-7-2003 and 26-7-2003. It may be taken note of that in the list of witnesses enclosed with the charge-sheet, name of nine witnesses have been indicated and it is only in the case of three persons that it is stated that a threat has been received. It is on the basis of these eight letters received in the University within three days on 28-7-2003, 29-7-2003 and 30-7-2003, that a decision is taken to dispense with the enquiry, whereas there is no other supporting material to show that any of these witnesses or the Enquiry Officers have made any complaint to the University authorities giving the particulars of the threat extended, the period when the threat was extended and the manner in which the threat is extended. It is, therefore, a case where the documents produced by the respondents' support of their contention seems to have been procured only for the purpose of creating a reason for dispensing with the enquiry and there is no supporting material available to show that these threats were actually in existence at the relevant time. 30. During the course of hearing of this writ petition Shri P.N. Dubey, learned Counsel, has emphasised that these material cannot be re-appreciated by this Court by discharging the duties of Appellate Authority and, therefore, he wants this Court to accept these documents as it is and record a finding to hold that the reason for dispensing with the enquiry is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Vice Chancellor. 31. 31. This Court cannot accept this proposition put forth by Shri P.N. Dubey, for two reasons :- The first reason is that when a constitutional right available to an employee is being taken away and when he is being dismissed from service without conducting a departmental enquiry, which is a constitutional protection available to him, cogent evidence and material should be available to show that dispensation with the enquiry or removal without following the rules of natural justice or the procedure contemplated under Rule 19 is undertaken, considerations which are in existence and the action impugned not based on the ipse dixit or assumptions of the authorities or based on material which have been created even though they are actually not in existence. If the documents and material available are analysed in the backdrop of these requirements, it would be seen that a conclusion can be drawn that these documents seem to have been created for taking action against the petitioner, as supporting material to show actual existence of a situation as is indicated by these documents are not available. If that be the position, then it is a case where action is taken on extraneous consideration in an arbitrary manner, based on irrelevant consideration therefore, is nothing but an irrational decision, which cannot be upheld by this Court. 32. Apart from the aforesaid, there is a second reason and which is more convincing and strong to support the aforesaid conclusion of this Court. It may be taken note of that after the impugned action was taken against the petitioners, they approached the Governor of the State, who was Chancellor of the University, and requested him to invoke the powers conferred upon him under Rule 14 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963. It may be taken note of that after the impugned action was taken against the petitioners, they approached the Governor of the State, who was Chancellor of the University, and requested him to invoke the powers conferred upon him under Rule 14 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963. Annexure P-8 is the memorandum in this regard submitted by the petitioners to the Chancellor and from Page 52 onwards of this document, are not-sheets received by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, from the' Secretariat of the Chancellor namely the Governor of M.P. If these note-sheets are meticulously scanned, it would be seen that the entire material as has been produced before this Court were placed for consideration even before the Governor and in Page 55 of the aforesaid note-sheet, in Paragraph 4, observations are made with regard to dispensation with the departmental enquiry and finally it is observed that dispensation with the enquiry has been done in a manner which cannot be approved and in Page 66, in Paragraph 10, the Secretary submits a report to the Governor, indicating that even though the Vice Chancellor of the University under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules can invoke the powers, but the power can be exercised only if situation so exists. It is indicated in this paragraph that the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor has exercised this power in a manner which has the effect of depriving the employees of their constitutional and legal right and the power has been exercised in a unilateral manner and with a biased attitude. In fact, if the entire note-sheets and the material available on record is meticulously scanned, it would be seen that the Chancellor of the University prima facie came to the conclusion in the enquiry conducted in his office that dispensation with the enquiry in the present case for the reasons given are not proper. These are the findings recorded by the Secretary of the Governor and the Chancellor, as is evidenced from the aforesaid note-sheet running into more than 50 pages. 33. These are the findings recorded by the Secretary of the Governor and the Chancellor, as is evidenced from the aforesaid note-sheet running into more than 50 pages. 33. Finally, after taking note of all these factors, a show-cause notice was issued to the University vide Annexure P-10 on 31-8-20C5 and in this show-cause notice the prima facie finding recorded has been reproduced and from Paragraph 4 onwards, particularly in Paragraph 4.5, it is indicated that the reasons given for exercising the powers under Rule 19 is not established and merely on the basis of letters given by three persons indicating that they cannot conduct the enquiry, the enquiry could not be dispensed with. Even the office of the Chancellor had taken note of the aforesaid three letters for dispensing with the enquiry and the explanation given by the University to the effect that the petitioners somehow came to know from the Confidential Department about the proposal to appoint these persons as Enquiry Officers. The office of the Chancellor has found the same to not correct. It is because of these reasons that in the show-cause notice issued under Section 14 of the Rules of 1963, the University was directed to show-cause as to why on the aforesaid ground the order of termination dated 5-8-2003 be not annulled and quashed. The University in reply vide Annexure R-ll simply repeated the same story as has been repeated before this Court and surprisingly when the matter went back to the office of the Chancellor, the note-sheet further indicates that the office of the Chancellor referred to some discussion that the Vice Chancellor of the University had with the Chief Secretary, Shri A.V. Singh; the Secretary to the Governor Shri I.S. Dani; the then Agriculture Minister; and, the Hon'ble Chief Minister before dismissal and held that as the dismissal order has been issued after consultation with all these authorities and as the power is exercised under Rule 19 after consultation with all these authorities, it is finally held that the Chancellor cannot interfere into the matter under Rule 14 and the matter was closed directing the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of appeal. 34. 34. It is, therefore, clear from a meticulous scanning of these note-sheets also that the decision to dispense with the enquiry was taken in a manner which was not even approved by the Chancellor, but for reasons which remain unexplained the Chancellor refused to interfere into the matter because it seems that the Secretary of the Governor was of the opinion that before taking action, consultation have taken place with various authorities including the Chief Secretary, Chief Minister and the Minister of the Department concerned and, therefore, the Chancellor should not interfere. This itself shows that the Disciplinary Authority namely the Vice Chancellor has not acted independently in the matter. The entire action is based on the advice given by the Legal Advisor and the consultation with the Officers as indicated hereinabove in Page 83, of the note-sheet (Annexure P-8), and if that be the position this Court has to hold that the decision taken for dispensing with the enquiry is based on irrelevant considerations and cannot be approved by this Court. 35. Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances as are indicated hereinabove and applying the principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, it has to be held by this Court that in this case action has been taken by the authorities concerned on their ipse dixit, without objectively analysing the matter, is based on irrational considerations and on improper analysis of the legal principle the action is taken. The satisfaction arrived at for dispensation with the enquiry is based on the whims and caprice of the concerned authorities and the material available on record does not support taking of such an action. 36. That being so, it is a fit case where the action taken should be interfered with and benefit granted to the petitioners as the proposed action cannot be said to be taken in a manner which can be approved by this Court. 37. That apart, when the petitioners submitted appeals and revisions to the Board of Management and the Governor, the same has been rejected by repeating the same comments given by the University without taking note of the totality of the circumstances as has been indicated hereinabove. 38. Petitioners, as indicated hereinabove, have put in more than 20 years of service. 37. That apart, when the petitioners submitted appeals and revisions to the Board of Management and the Governor, the same has been rejected by repeating the same comments given by the University without taking note of the totality of the circumstances as has been indicated hereinabove. 38. Petitioners, as indicated hereinabove, have put in more than 20 years of service. There is no material available on record to show that during this period of service the petitioners have committed any misconduct or have acted in a manner which can be termed as unbecoming of an employee. They are proceeded against and the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is imposed upon them by invoking the extraordinary procedure contemplated under Rule 19 (ii) of the CCA Rules and for doing so, the reasons recorded are not germane to the issue in question, are based on irrelevant material and based on facts which are not established from the material available on record. 39. If the contention of the respondents with regard to existence of a law and order situation was correct, then as indicated hereinabove the district administration would have taken some action in the matter. All this goes to show that only on paper a situation has been created to justify taking of the action whereas in fact the existence of such a situation is doubtful or is rather not established and, therefore, this Court is not in a position or rather unable to uphold the act of the respondents. 40. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated 5-8-2003 (Annexure P-3) dismissing the petitioners from service and the consequential orders dismissing the appeals and revisions are all quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service and grant them all consequential benefits. However, if so advised, respondents are free to proceed in the matter for taking action against the petitioners for the alleged misconduct by conducting a proper departmental enquiry. 41. With the aforesaid, both the petitions stand allowed and disposed of.