JUDGMENT By the Court.—The Committee of Management of Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra (The College) through its Secretary and the Principal have filed this petition to assail the order dated 23 July 2016 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Agra (The University) that disapproves the order dated 13 June 2016 of the Committee of Management of the College to suspend Dr. Sanjay Kumar Misra, a Reader in the College who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in this petition. 2. The Committee of Management of the College in its meeting held on 13 June 2016 resolved to suspend Dr. Sanjay Kumar Misra and appointed a three member committee to hold disciplinary enquiry against him. The suspension order states that Dr. Misra had misbehaved with the Principal of the College on 16 April 2016 and after tearing the notice dated 7 April 2016 issued to him, threw the torn papers on his table. He conducted an act of indiscipline by raising his voice and hurling abuses at the Principal. All this was captured on the CCTV camera. The entire papers relating to suspension of Dr. Misra were sent to the Vice-Chancellor of the University who under Section 35(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (The Act) has the power to revoke or modify the order of suspension. The Vice-Chancellor of the University by the impugned order has revoked the suspension order for reasons which are reproduced below : “9. There have been allegations and counter allegations against both the parties. It is matter of deep concern. About twenty five persons were seen agitating in the Principal’s Office at the time of the incident which is captured in the CCTV Camera footage and produced before undersigned, which the Second Party has not denied. However, charges have been framed only against the First Party and served upon the First Party on 1.7.2016 by the Second Party and left all other unnoticed whereas the alleged agitation was a collective move of a group of teachers. From the aforesaid Footage, it is crystal clear that two persons have torn off the alleged notice and threw papers on the Principal. The Beating of the Principal’s office table, shouting at the Principal of the college is also clear from the aforesaid footage. 10. From the aforesaid Footage, it is crystal clear that two persons have torn off the alleged notice and threw papers on the Principal. The Beating of the Principal’s office table, shouting at the Principal of the college is also clear from the aforesaid footage. 10. The First Party alleges that the Second Party has suspended only the First Party on 13.6.2016 and thereby penalised only the First Party for the misconduct committed by others also and he (the First Party) has specifically argued that the Second Party has singled him out to punish him intentionally and discriminately for the reasons best known to it. On viewing the CCTV Camera footage on the day of the incidence two teachers are seen of tearing the alleged notice and throwing on the Principal. Why only one teacher i.e. the First Party has been suspended and no action was been taken against the other teacher who has also torn off the alleged notice and threw on the Principal. From the aforesaid analysis and investigation, I reach to the conclusion that the Second Party has acted discriminately with mala fide objects against the First Party in suspending him, which reflects partiality done with First Party. 11. Without going into merit of the claims and counter claims raised by both the parties, I am of the opinion prima facie that the suspension dated 13.6.2016 by the Second Party against the First Party is discriminatory, illegal, unlawful and not sustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be disapproved. 12. The points and the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet are serious allegations that are yet to be substantiated by the enquiry which is pending in this case. Therefore, the Second Party is directed to conclude the departmental enquiry into the aforesaid incident dated 16.4.2016 within one month from the date of passing of this order by affording full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and may take action under the Statutory Provisions against the persons found guilty. Thus, the First Party’s aforesaid suspension dated 13.6.2016 is hereby disapproved.” 3. The petition is being disposed of at this stage as all the learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that they do not wish to file any counter-affidavit and the matter be heard finally. 4. Thus, the First Party’s aforesaid suspension dated 13.6.2016 is hereby disapproved.” 3. The petition is being disposed of at this stage as all the learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that they do not wish to file any counter-affidavit and the matter be heard finally. 4. Before dealing with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain relevant facts. A notice dated 7 April 2016 was issued by the Principal of the College to all the teaching and non teaching staff of the College for maintaining integrity and discipline in the College with a request not to permit or sit in the college rooms with any person involved in activities against the interest of the Committee of Management of the College. It is stated that feeling agitated with the aforesaid notice, Dr. Misra entered the office of the Principal on 16 April 2016 alongwith other teachers and started shouting and using unparliamentary and filthy language against the Principal. He also tore the aforesaid notice and threw it on the table of the Principal with a threat that if such a notice was issued again, the Principal would face dire consequences. A letter dated 18 April 2016 was sent by the Principal to Dr. Misra asking him to explain his conduct. Dr. Misra submitted his reply on 26 April 2016 stating that his act does not come within the purview of misconduct. On not being satisfied with the letter, another letter dated 7 May 2016 was sent by the Principal of the college to Dr. Misra seeking his explanation. Dr. Misra again reiterated the earlier position. The Committee of Management, thereafter, in its meeting held on 13 June 2016 resolved to suspend Dr. Misra and to hold a disciplinary enquiry against him. 5. A charge-sheet has been issued to Dr. Misra seeking his explanation. Dr. Misra again reiterated the earlier position. The Committee of Management, thereafter, in its meeting held on 13 June 2016 resolved to suspend Dr. Misra and to hold a disciplinary enquiry against him. 5. A charge-sheet has been issued to Dr. Misra containing the following charges: ^^fnukad 16-04-2016 dks ¼d½ vki vU; f'k{kdksa ds lkFk izkpk;Z dk;kZy; esa vk;s rFkk vki tksj&tksj ls fpYykdj rFkk mxz :i /kkj.k djrs gq;s izkpk;Z }kjk fuxZr vkns'k fnukad 7-4-2016 dh izfr dks QkM+dj izkpk;Z ds Åij Qsadk vkSj muds ljdkjh dk;Z djus esa ck/kk mRiUu dhA ¼[k½ vkius izkpk;Z ls ve;kZfnr Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s fd& ¼1½ vki izsalhiy gks x;s rks vius dks le>rs gks D;k gS\ ¼2½ vkidk fnekx [kjkc gks x;k gSA ¼3½ vxj vkius dHkh Hkh fdlh f'k{kd dks ,d i= Hkh fy[kk rks vkidh est ,slh iyVwaxk tks mYVh gksdj vki ij gh fxjsxhA ¼4½ vki dkWyst ds fy;s cgqr cM+s xn~nkj gSA ¼x½ vkius viuh ckr dks euokus ds fy;s vuqfpr ncko Mkyk rFkk izkpk;Z dks /kedk;k rFkk vkius dgk fd gekjs dgus ds vuqlkj dke ugha fd;k rks ge f'k{kdksa ls fofHkUu desfV;ks@inksa ls lkewfgd R;kxi= fnyok;saxsA ¼?k½ vkius viekutud ckrsa ,oa xkyh xykSt dk iz;ksx fd;kA ¼³½ vkius est dks Bksd&Bksd dj rFkk viuh vaxqyh izkpk;Z dh vksj dj fpYykdj ckr dhA mijksDr lHkh vkids O;ogkj izkpk;Z d{k esa yxs lh-lh-Vh-oh- dSejs dh QqVst esa Li"V gks jgk gS tks izek.k ds :i esa v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds ikl gSA** 6. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has pointed out that though the Vice-Chancellor of the University after seeing CCTV camera footage has found 25 persons agitating in the office of the Principal and two persons tearing the notice, throwing the torn paper on the table of the Principal and thumping his desk, yet he has disapproved the suspension order only on the ground that the action had been taken by the management only against one teacher and no action had been taken against the other teacher. It is urged that the Vice-Chancellor was not justified in revoking the suspension order particularly when even a prima facie finding has not been recorded that Dr. Misra was not involved in the incident. Leaned Senior Counsel submitted that the charges levelled against Dr. It is urged that the Vice-Chancellor was not justified in revoking the suspension order particularly when even a prima facie finding has not been recorded that Dr. Misra was not involved in the incident. Leaned Senior Counsel submitted that the charges levelled against Dr. Misra are very serious in nature and the Vice-Chancellor was not justified in revoking the suspension order when he himself has directed the enquiry to be completed within one month. 7. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for the University has submitted that the Vice-Chancellor was justified in revoking the suspension order as it cannot be said that Dr. Misra will influence the enquiry proceedings. His contention is that the Vice-Chancellor has the power to revoke or set aside the suspension order under Section 35(4) of the Act and the Vice-Chancellor has used his discretion in a proper manner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of filing a reference to the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the Act. 8. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ambuj Mishra learned counsel appearing for Dr. Misra has submitted that no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the University that the suspension of Dr. Misra was an act of discrimination as many others who were involved were not proceeded against. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court In Re T.V. Choudhary, (1987) 3 SCC 258 and K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P. and another, (1999) 6 SCC 257 . 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 10. The charges that have been levelled against Dr. Misra are serious in nature. The incident has been captured in CCTV camera footage and the Vice-Chancellor has also found as a fact from the CCTV footage that teachers were agitating in the office of the Principal and that two teachers had torn the notice and threw it on the table of the Principal. The teachers were also found beating the office table of the Principal and shouting at him. A charge-sheet has also been issued to [Mr. MIsra]1 and it has been reproduced in the order of the Vice-Chancellor. The statements that [Mr. The teachers were also found beating the office table of the Principal and shouting at him. A charge-sheet has also been issued to [Mr. MIsra]1 and it has been reproduced in the order of the Vice-Chancellor. The statements that [Mr. Misra]1 is alleged to have made against the Principal are very disturbing. Teachers are required to maintain the highest standards of discipline. If the teachers start misbehaving with the Principal of the Institution in the manner found above, they may not be able to inspire confidence of the students. The institution, in such circumstance, would suffer and so would the students. The Vice-Chancellor has also observed in the impugned order that such behavior by the teachers is a “matter of deep concern”. 11. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the reason given by the Vice-Chancellor that because a teacher who had torn the paper had not been proceeded against by the Committee of Management of the College, the suspension of Dr. Misra shall be disapproved. If that was so, action could have been directed to be taken against the teacher alleged to have indulged in a similar act of indiscipline. 12. In re T.V. Choudhary (supra) in which the order of suspension was challenged on the ground that it was discriminatory as persons similarly situated were not proceeded against, the Supreme Court granted time to the Government to consider placing such co-delinquents under suspension. The Special Leave Petition was ultimately dismissed as infructuous as the grievance of the appellant before the Supreme Court regarding discrimination stood redressed. 13. K. Sukhendar Reddy (supra) cited by learned counsel for Dr. Misra also does not come to his aid. The appellant therein was a member of Indian Administrative Service and was initially placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. Later on, another order of suspension was passed stating that no disciplinary proceedings are contemplated but he was being suspended on account of his prima facie involvement in a criminal case under Sections 468, 471, 409 and 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. At the time he was placed under suspension, the case was under investigation by the C.I.D. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had continued under suspension for more than two and half years and no charge-sheet had been submitted. At the time he was placed under suspension, the case was under investigation by the C.I.D. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had continued under suspension for more than two and half years and no charge-sheet had been submitted. It was found that various other officers senior to the appellant were also under investigation by the C.I.D. in connection with the same case but no action was taken against them. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court quashed the suspension order observing that a high officer of the Indian Administrative Service against whom disciplinary proceedings were not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period merely on account of pending criminal investigation and particularly when many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved alongwith the appellant. However, it was still left open to the State Government to consider the feasibility of placing the appellant under suspension as and when charge-sheet was filed by the C.I.D. in the case that was under investigation. 14. Learned counsel for Dr. Misra also placed reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 , wherein it has been held that a suspension order passed in contemplation or during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings should not be permitted to continue indefinitely. It has been held that a person under suspension has to suffer ‘ignominy of insinuation, the scorn of society and the derision of his department’. A suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent; if memorandum of charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. 15. In the instant case, Dr. Misra was placed under suspension by order dated 20 June 2016 on basis of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 13 June 2016. He has already been served a charge-sheet dated 01 July 2016 and the disciplinary proceedings are underway. The Vice-Chancellor has directed that the enquiry should be completed within one month. 16. Misra was placed under suspension by order dated 20 June 2016 on basis of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 13 June 2016. He has already been served a charge-sheet dated 01 July 2016 and the disciplinary proceedings are underway. The Vice-Chancellor has directed that the enquiry should be completed within one month. 16. As regards the objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a reference before the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the Act, it needs to be stated that in the instant case, the facts on the basis of which the Court has been called up to adjudge the validity of the impugned order are not in dispute. There is no gainsaying that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition. The only reason assigned by the Vice-Chancellor for disapproving the suspension order is that the second teacher found to be throwing paper on the Principal has not been suspended. We, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to dismiss the petition on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. We also cannot loose sight of the fact that the result of disapproval of the suspension order will have the effect of permitting Dr. Misra to resume his duties in the college. The charges levelled against Dr. Misra are quite serious in nature, which if proved, may entail a major penalty. 17. Thus for the [‘reasons’]1 stated above, the impugned order dated 23 July 2016 passed by the Vice-Chancellor disapproving the suspension order is quashed. The Vice-Chancellor shall pass a fresh order expeditiously. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, we direct that Dr. Sanjay Kumar Misra shall remain under suspension till a fresh order is passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. 18. The petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.