Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1587 (HP)

Himachal Pradesh University v. Bansi Ram Thakur

2016-08-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. De-linked from LPA No. 175 of 2011. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 10384 of 2008, titled as Bansi Ram versus H.P. University & others, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed, for short ‘the impugned judgment’. 3. The short controversy involved in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment is legally correct? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 4. The writ petitioner-respondent herein was charge-sheeted and inquiry was initiated against him. He was found guilty and vide order dated 23.07.2001 (Annexure A-8) passed by the Vice Chancellor, major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. 5. The writ petitioner-respondent filed appeal (Annexure A-9) against the order dated 23.07.2001, supra, before the Executive Council. 6. After noticing that the Executive Council is not an Appellate Authority, the writ petitioner-respondent prayed for withdrawal of the appeal, which was not granted. The Executive Council disposed of the appeal and passed the order of removal from service against the writ petitioner-respondent, which was subject matter of the writ petition. 7. The Ordinance 35.52-A of the Himachal Pradesh University, 1st Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973, (as amended upto September, 2002), provides the mechanism how to conduct inquiries and the final authority is the Vice Chancellor. It does not contain any provision whereby the Executive Council is made as an Appellate Authority and it has to hear appeals against the orders of Vice Chancellor. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants-writ respondents frankly conceded the said proposition. However, he has argued that as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for short ‘the CCS(CCA) Rules’, the Appellate Authority can alter the punishment and can award the major penalty. The argument is devoid of any force for the reason that the Executive Council is not the Appellate Authority, which he has already conceded. Thus, the Executive Council has passed the major penalty in terms of the order impugned in the writ petition, which is without power, competence and jurisdiction. 9. Having said so, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.