# Dr. Pradyumna Singh v. The Chancellor, Din Dayal Upadhyay,Gorakhpur Univeristy and

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 621
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46071 of 2000
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, K. N. Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-pradyumna-singh-v-the-chancellor-din-dayal-upadhyay-gorakhpur-univeristy-and-41943
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

U.P. State Universities Act, Section 35(2)
readwith
Para
17.06
of
status
of
university-Dismissal of Principal-enquiry
conducted
in
accordance
with
lawinspite of full fledged opportunity the
petitioners tried his best to avoid the
disciplinary
proceeding-even
on
first
opportunity never raise voice regarding
non availability of supported documentsappellate
authority
confirmed
the
punishment
of
dismissal-considering
gravity of charges-writ court declined to
interfere.

Held: Para 24 and 25

The entire correspondence annexed to
the writ petition establishes that the
petitioner was only trying to avoid and
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
delay the enquiry. He did not want the
document, which were removed after
breaking up the locks from his residence
to prepare a defence. There was no
specific demand of any documents by the
petitioner, whereas he was the Principal
of the college for 9 years and was all
along maintaining the accounts. The
petitioner also did not state in his
correspondence that the documents in
support of the chargesheet were not
annexed with the chargesheet. His reply
was confined to the fact that the
documents removed from his residence
were to be used by him in his defence.

We do not find any good ground to
interfere with the orders of the Vice
Chancellor approving the resolution of
the
Committee
of
Management
to
dismiss the petitioner on the charges,
which were found established against
him in an enquiry in which he refused to
participate,
and
the
order
of
the
Chancellor
dismissing
the
appeal,
considering all the points. We also
decline to interfere in the matter on the
ground that the petitioner was accused
in the crimes of the murder of a teacher
of his own college and for embezzlement
of the funds of the college.

## Text

2 All] Dr. Pradyumna Singh V. The Chancellor, D.D.U.,Gorakhpur Univeristy and others
621
no. 1 to 4, it has not been disputed that the
said plot was not a pasture land, it is
necessary in the interest of justice to issue a
direction to the respondent no. 3, the
Collector, Mau to evict the respondent no. 6
forthwith, in any case not later than one
month from the date of production of
certified copy of this order before him.

28. The respondents are further
directed not to allot or lease out the said plot
to any person. The said plot shall be
restored as pasture land. No person or
authority shall be entitled to change its use.

29. From the record, prima facie it is
evident that the officials were hands in
glove with the contesting private respondent
no.6 with a view to illegally grab the
common land of the villagers. Let an
inquiry be conducted against the then
officials who accorded the permission for
treating the land in dispute as a vacant land
by ordering the change of revenue entry and
the officials who have accorded the sanction
of the proposal of Gaon Sabha if any for
allotment of the disputed land to the
contesting respondent no.6.

30. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed with cost of
Rs.50,000/- payable by the contesting
private respondent no.6. Out of the said
amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be
payable to the petitioner and the remaining
amount shall be payable to the Gaon Sabha.
One month time is granted to pay the said
cost failing which it shall be open to the
Collector to recover the said amount along
with the collection charges from the
contesting private respondent in accordance
with law. Both the impugned orders dated
23.11.2004 and 19.10.2006 are hereby set
aside. The authority concerned is required
to take immediate action for the restoration
of the land in question as public utility land
by evicting the respondent No. 6 from the
land in dispute, as directed above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE K. N. PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46071 of 2000

Dr. Pradyumna Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The
Chancellor,
Din
Dayal
Upadhyay,Gorakhpur
Univeristy
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O.P. Singh
Sri S.K. Rao
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri R.C. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Ojha
Sri Dilip Gupta
C.S.C.

U.P. State Universities Act, Section 35(2)
readwith
Para
17.06
of
status
of
university-Dismissal of Principal-enquiry
conducted
in
accordance
with
lawinspite of full fledged opportunity the
petitioners tried his best to avoid the
disciplinary
proceeding-even
on
first
opportunity never raise voice regarding
non availability of supported documentsappellate
authority
confirmed
the
punishment
of
dismissal-considering
gravity of charges-writ court declined to
interfere.

Held: Para 24 and 25

The entire correspondence annexed to
the writ petition establishes that the
petitioner was only trying to avoid and
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
delay the enquiry. He did not want the
document, which were removed after
breaking up the locks from his residence
to prepare a defence. There was no
specific demand of any documents by the
petitioner, whereas he was the Principal
of the college for 9 years and was all
along maintaining the accounts. The
petitioner also did not state in his
correspondence that the documents in
support of the chargesheet were not
annexed with the chargesheet. His reply
was confined to the fact that the
documents removed from his residence
were to be used by him in his defence.

We do not find any good ground to
interfere with the orders of the Vice
Chancellor approving the resolution of
the
Committee
of
Management
to
dismiss the petitioner on the charges,
which were found established against
him in an enquiry in which he refused to
participate,
and
the
order
of
the
Chancellor
dismissing
the
appeal,
considering all the points. We also
decline to interfere in the matter on the
ground that the petitioner was accused
in the crimes of the murder of a teacher
of his own college and for embezzlement
of the funds of the college.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. We have heard Shri O.P. Singh
assisted by Shri S.K. Rao for the
petitioner. Shri R.K. Ojha appears for the
management-respondents.

2. The petitioner was selected by the
U.P.
Higher
Education
Service
Commission and was appointed as
Principal of Buddha Post Graduate
College, Kushi Nagar in June 1989. He
joined as Principal of the college on
5.12.1989. It is stated by him in the writ
petition
that
he
started
several
departments
in
the
college
and
constructed
buildings.
The
college
progressed day by day and became one of
the famous colleges affiliated under Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur. The petitioner's work and
conduct was so good that he was
considered for appointment to the post of
Vice Chancellor of some other university.

3. It is stated in the writ petition that
the Committee of Management of the
college is headed by an industrialist,
Sardar
Dilip
Singh
Majithiya.
Shri
Chandan Singh Dhillon was the Secretary
of the Committee of Management of the
college and Shri Rameshwar Prasad
Pandey was the Joint Secretary. They
wanted to use the property of the college
for their personal advantage. A number of
letters are annexed to the writ petition to
show that the petitioner was directed by
Shri Majithiya and Shri Dhillon to bear
the expenditure of their travel. Many a
time money was also demanded. The
petitioner refused to oblige on which the
management was not pleased and started
interfering in the affairs of the college.

4. The petitioner was suspended on
18.2.1999 and a first information report
was lodged by College Management
against him and four others in Case Crime
No.345 of 1999 under Section 408, 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The High Court
in Criminal Misc. Application No.1940 of
2000 by order dated 8.3.2000 transferred
the investigation from civil police to
CBCID. The investigation is still pending.

5.

A
five
member
enquiry
committee was appointed by the college
on 24.2.1999 to enquire into the matter
and submit a chargesheet for approval
before the Committee of Management.
Since the petitioner had made many
complaints against the Secretary and the
Joint Secretary, who was made the
2 All] Dr. Pradyumna Singh V. The Chancellor, D.D.U.,Gorakhpur Univeristy and others
623
members of the enquiry committee, a
representation was made by him to
change the members of the enquiry
committee on 1.3.1999 and 12.3.1999.
These applications were ignored and
chargesheet dated 16.3.1999 was prepared
and was sent by registered post. The
chargesheet was received by him on
21.5.1999.

6.

In
the
chargesheet
dated
16.3.1999 running into 25 pages the
petitioner
was
charged
with
administrative
and
financial
mismanagement,
misappropriation
of
college funds and embezzlement. He was
charged with allowing a daily wage
employee, who is not regular employee of
the college to maintain the accounts; cash
book
and
other
accounts
of
the
maintenance
grants
for
which
no
permission was taken from the President/
Secretary
of
the
Committee
of
Management. The amount spent towards
maintenance of which the vouchers were
annexed with the chargesheet were paid
for which no work was carried out, nor
there is any proof of its expenditure. All
the vouchers are on plain paper and paid
in cash and in this manner the petitioner
has
embezzled
Rs.5,15,414/-.
The
amounts for binding and purchase of
books was spent without any demand for
binding and receipt of bills. A large
number of daily wage employees were
engaged without taking sanction from the
President of the Society. The District
Magistrate was given false information
about the meeting of the Committee of
Management
vide
his
letter
dated
8.3.1999. The petitioner was also charged
with failing to attend the meeting on the
murder of a teacher of the college late
Shri J.N. Singh causing disturbance and
destruction of the property of the college
by the agitated students. By Charge
No.3A the petitioner was charged with
appointing his own wife Smt. Gyanti
Singh as Lecturer in History. He had
concealed the fact that she was his wife.
He also appointed one Shri Ghan Shyam
Rao, the Lecturer in Ancient History by
manipulating his marks, whereas he was
not
eligible
for
appointment.
The
nomination fees of Rs.1,43,783/- and
examination fees of Rs.3,34,270/- was
misappropriated.
The
petitioner
had
charged applications fees of Rs.20/- and
admission fees of Rs.75/- from the
students and did not deposit the entire
amount of Rs.4,39,710/- in the college
accounts. An amount of Rs.4,50,741.50
was used for personal expenses. In the
same manner the caution money fund,
sports fund, reading room fund, B.Ed.
cultural fund, examination fund, social
welfare fund, development fund and the
grant received from the University were
misappropriated,
for
which
a
first
information report was lodged against
him.

7. It is stated in the writ petition that
in the absence of the petitioner on
28.3.1999 the members of the committee
took away more than 300 files, cash
books, vouchers, registers and papers
from the residence of the petitioner after
breaking the lock. Out of these only 149
papers and registers were mentioned in
the inventory signed by 13 persons. The
chargesheet was prepared on the basis of
these documents but that enquiry officer
did not supply these documents along
with the chargesheet or thereafter. The
petitioner requested for these documents
by letter dated 22.5.1999 to the President
and the Committee of Management but
the documents were not supplied to him.
Once again he wrote a letter on 24.5.1999.
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Since he did not get the documents,
general reply was given to the chargesheet
on 16.3.1999. The petitioner, thereafter,
kept on sending letters on 5.7.1999,
19.7.1999, 28.7.1999 and 4.8.1999 to give
documents relied upon in the chargesheet.
The documents, however, were not
supplied to him.

8. On 9.8.1999 the President of the
Committee of Management passed a
resolution for dismissing the petitioner
from service and send a copy to the Vice
Chancellor of the University for his
approval. The petitioner filed a Writ
Petition No.37339 of 1999. On 1.9.1999
the writ petition was disposed of with
directions that the Vice Chancellor will
pass an order withi9n a period of one
month and that unless and until the Vice
Chancellor approve the resolution, the
same shall not be given effect to. The
order was in consonance with the
provisions of the U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973 (the Act).

9. The Vice Chancellor by his letter
dated 4.9.1999 informed the petitioner
fixing
15.9.1999
for
hearing.
The
petitioner wrote letter to the Vice
Chancellor on 9.9.1999 to provide the
documents, which were mentioned in the
chargesheet and that the Committee of
Management should be asked after supply
of documents to give him an opportunity
of hearing. The petitioner also made a
personal request at the time of oral
hearing to the Vice Chancellor on
15.9.1999 to be given documents and
proper hearing. The petitioner's request
was not accepted. The documents and the
witnesses were not summoned nor any
direction was given to the Committee of
Management to that effect and on
28.9.1999 the Vice Chancellor of the
University approved the resolution of the
Committee of Management dismissing the
petitioner from the post of Principal under
Section 35 (2) of the Act.

10. The Vice Chancellor in his order
approving
the
resolution
of
the
Committee of Management to dismiss the
petitioner has observed that the enquiry
committee after considering the records,
and the accounts examined by the
Chartered Accountant found the charge of
embezzlement of Rs.95,90,769/- to be
established against him. He found that the
chargesheet of 25 pages with 171
documents in proof was sent to the
petitioner by registered post at his
residential address on 16.3.1999. He was
required to submit his explanation within
three weeks. A news was also published
in ''Dainik Jagran' on 14th May, 1999,
''Rashtriya Sahara' Editions Lucknow and
Delhi on 12.5.1999 asking the petitioner
to submit his explanation. The petitioner
did not submit any explanation on which
the enquiry committee considered the 16
page enquiry report on the basis of
document. In between the petitioner sent a
letter on 24.5.1999, which was received
by the Secretary of the society asking for
time to submit his explanation by
30.6.1999. In order to give sufficient for
explanation
the
Committee
of
Management
in
its
meeting
dated
24.6.1999 decided to sent a copy of the
enquiry report to the petitioner to submit
his explanation and to give him an
opportunity to examine the documents
and evidence all over again. The notice
was also published in the newspaper
''Dainik Jagran' on 24.6.1999 allowing the
Principal to appear either on 12th, 13th,
14th
July,
1999
according
to
his
convenience and to appear in the office of
the Secretary, who was the coordinator of
2 All] Dr. Pradyumna Singh V. The Chancellor, D.D.U.,Gorakhpur Univeristy and others
625
the enquiry committee. The Principal
submitted his reply on 29.6.1999, which
was received by the Secretary on
10.9.1999 and in which the petitioner
denied the charges and requested for
revoking the suspension order.

11. The Committee of Management
in its meeting dated 9th August 1999
decided to give an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner and informed him
by registered post on 26.7.1999 but that
the petitioner did not appear on which by
a unanimous decision in the meeting of
the Committee of Management on the
same day on 9th August, 1999, it was
decided to dismiss the petitioner for
having remained absent for a long period
of time, misappropriating the amount
from
maintenance
and
development
grants without the approval of the
President and the Secretary ignoring the
permanent employees of the college to
allow the daily wagers to prepare the
accounts. The Committee of Management
also found the petitioner guilty of
appointing the ineligible persons as
Lecturers
in
the
college
and
for
mismanagement. He was also found
guilty of making payments in violation of
the orders of the High Court in
misappropriating the registration fees of
Rs.1,45,782/- and examination fees of
Rs.8,44,088.75 of the students. He was
also
found
guilty
of
withdrawing
Rs.49,97,648.27 by vouchers, which has
been verified and for not depositing and
misappropriating the entire amount of
Rs.36,05,250.00
received
from
the
University Grants Commission. The Vice
Chancellor found that the principles of
natural justice have been followed in
establishing the charges and thus he
approved the resolution to dismiss the
petitioner from service.

12. The petitioner preferred an
appeal
before
the
Chancellor
on
28.9.1999 and sent a letter to the
Chancellor
again
demanding
the
documents and hearing to explain the
allegations. The appeal was rejected on
20.6.2000. The order was served on the
petitioner on 13.7.2000 giving rise to this
writ petition.

13. The Chancellor in his order
dated 20th June, 2000 considered the
grounds urged by the petitioner in appeal
namely
that
the
Committee
of
Management and the Vice Chancellor did
not give him sufficient opportunity to
defend himself. The documents and the
evidence in proof of the charges were not
given to him and that by unreasonable
haste the resolution of the Committee of
Management to dismiss the petitioner was
approved. The Chancellor has considered
the stand taken by the Committee of
Management that the petitioner was given
sufficient opportunity to defend himself.
The
enquiry
committee
gave
a
chargesheet on the basis of cogent
evidence establishing embezzlement. The
petitioner
was
given
sufficient
opportunity
by
the
Committee
of
Management on 12.7.1999 and 9.8.1999
and thereafter by the Committee of
Management also. The Chancellor also
noted the contention of the Committee of
Management of the college that the
petitioner has also been made an accused
in Case Crime No.1107 of 1998 reporting
the murder of late Shri J.N. Singh,
Associate
Professor
in
the
Botany
Department of the college. The High
Court dismissed the writ petition of the
petitioner to quash the first information
report. The Chancellor has also noted the
statement
of
the
Committee
of
Management. The petitioner is an accused
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
in Case Crime No.86 of 1999 for
embezzlement as Accused No.3.

14. After narrating the charges
against the petitioner the Chancellor
quoted sub-section (2) of Section 35 and
Statutes 17.06 relating to departmental
enquiry against the teachers including the
Principal of the Statutes of the Gorakhpur
University and has recorded the finding
that the petitioner was given chargesheet
and that his explanation to the charges
were
considered
after
giving
him
sufficient opportunity of hearing before
deciding to dismiss his services. The fact
available on record establish that the
petitioner is guilty of serious charges,
which were proved against him on the
basis of the evidence and that there was
no illegality of the order of the Vice
Chancellor.

15. Shri O.P. Singh assisted by Shri
S.K. Rao submits that the documents were
not supplied to the petitioner. The entire
enquiry was farce. The President of the
college mostly lives outside the country
and use to demand money for himself and
the Secretary of the College. The
petitioner even after doing his best and
improving the college, could not make
illegal demand of the management and
was thus framed in respect of charges for
which he had sufficient explanation. The
documents taken away from his residence
were sought to be basis of proving the
charges. These documents were never
given tot he petitioner. The petitioner
requested to give the document on the
basis of which the allegations were made
against him of embezzlement made to the
enquiry committee, the Committee of
Management and the Vice Chancellor
were not considered. The petitioner could
not give a detailed reply tot he charges on
account
of
non-availability
of
the
documents. It is submitted that the
enquiry is vitiated for violation of
principle of natural justice. The charges of
embezzlement could not be proved in the
documents which were supplied to the
petitioner.

16. Shri O.P. Singh has tried to
establish the fact of non-furnishing of the
documents,
in
submitting
that
the
chargesheet could not have enclosed 171
documents, which has been sent to him by
post without affixing sufficient stamp.
The documents were not enclosed with
the chargesheet.

17. In the counter affidavit of Shri
Rameshwar Prasad Pandey, Secretary of
the Buddha Post Graduate College,
Kushinagar it is specifically alleged in
para 19 that all the documents in support
of the charges relied upon in establishing
the guilt (171 enclosures) were sent along
with chargesheet and were received by the
petitioner. In para 19 of the counter
affidavit it is stated as follows:-

"19. That the contents of paragraph
No.21 of the writ petition are denied. It is
further stated that chargesheet dated
16.3.99 was sent by the answering
respondents by a registered letter dated
17.3.1999 to the parental address of the
petitioner as well as to the new address of
New Delhi. A copy of the receipt of the
registered letter is being filed herewith
and is marked as Annexure CA-6 to this
affidavit.

That by perusal of the aforesaid
receipt it is very much clear that amount
of charge is about Rs.170-176, which
clearly shows that answering respondents
has sent a chargesheet containing 171
2 All] Dr. Pradyumna Singh V. The Chancellor, D.D.U.,Gorakhpur Univeristy and others
627
evidence
enclosed
along
with
the
aforesaid
chargesheet.
Further
Smt.
Gyanti Singh wife of the petitioner has
served a letter in the office of the college
on 2.4.1999 in which petitioner has very
much shown that enquiry is pending
against him on the charge. A copy of the
letter dated 2.4.1999 is being filed
herewith and is marked as Annexure CA07 to this affidavit."

18. It is submitted by Shri R.K. Ojha
that when the petitioner involved in
several criminal cases, left the institutions
unattended, after 27.1.1999, the almirahs
were opened in the presence of the SDM
and other local authorities locks were
opened and the documents were put in the
custody of competent authority.

19. We find that though the
petitioner has denied in para 25 that the
chargesheet included the documents, and
that payment of Rs.170 or 176 of the
stamps on envelops does not mean that
the documents enclosed were infact
documents relied upon in the charge
sheet. He has not denied that he left the
college unattended after 27.1.1999 on
which locks were broken in the presence
of the SDM and other authorities. He has
tried to defend himself in saying that on
one hand the respondents have served
chargesheet on 16.3.1999 while on the
other hand locks of the petitioner's house
were broken on 28.3.1999 and from this
admission it appears that entire exercise
were carried out in a preplanned manner.
If the chragesheet were prepared on the
basis of preliminary enquiry and other
documents, same document could not
have been recovered later.

20. The petitioner left the college
unattended on 27.1.1999. The Committee
of Management with the help of district
administration got the locks opened and
recover the documents and that the
chargesheet enclosed 171 documents in
evidence against the charges after the
preliminary enquiry was conducted. The
chargesheet was sent tot he petitioner's
residence as well as his parental address
of New Delhi.

21. We have gone through the
chargesheet and find that each of the
charges has been stated in detail. Each
voucher with the details of the amount,
and the person, who carried out the work,
which the Committee of Management did
not found to be verified; the amount
drawn sought to be spent for purchase of
books, the appointment of his own wife
Smt. Gyanti Singh as Lecturer in History.
The appointment of Shri Ghan Shyam,
Lecturer
in
Ancient
History
by
manipulating his marks, misappropriation
of the registration fees and examination
fees of the students, which was not
entered in the account and other items of
embezzlement were clearly stated. The
petitioner gave a vague and evasive reply
to the chargesheet in just two paragraphs
on 22.5.1999. In the first para he protested
to the failure of the President of the
Committee of Management to give reply
to his application for changing the
members of the enquiry committee and
carrying out the enquiry by private
Chartered Accountant. In the second
paragraph he protested to the breaking of
the locks at his residence on 28.3.1999
taking away all the documents. He alleged
that the documents, which could be
produced by him in proof of his evidence
were also removed and that he could
given reply tot he charges only if all the
documents are made available to him in
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
the absence of which it was not possible
for him to give reply.

22. It is significant to notice that the
petitioner did not deny the charges and
only protested to change of enquiry
officer and for providing him the
documents, which were removed and
which can be used by him in his defence.

23. It is also significant to note that
the petitioner did not state in his first
letter dated 22.5.1999 on receiving the
chargesheet that the letter did not
accompany the documents mentioned in
the chargesheet and which were drawn to
be relied upon in proof of the charges.

24. The entire correspondence
annexed to the writ petition establishes
that the petitioner was only trying to
avoid and delay the enquiry. He did not
want the document, which were removed
after breaking up the locks from his
residence to prepare a defence. There was
no specific demand of any documents by
the petitioner, whereas he was the
Principal of the college for 9 years and
was all along maintaining the accounts.
The petitioner also did not state in his
correspondence that the documents in
support of the chargesheet were not
annexed with the chargesheet. His reply
was confined to the fact that the
documents removed from his residence
were to be used by him in his defence.

25. We do not find any good ground
to interfere with the orders of the Vice
Chancellor approving the resolution of the
Committee of Management to dismiss the
petitioner on the charges, which were
found established against him in an
enquiry in which he refused to participate,
and the order of the Chancellor dismissing
the appeal, considering all the points. We
also decline to interfere in the matter on
the ground that the petitioner was accused
in the crimes of the murder of a teacher of
his own college and for embezzlement of
the funds of the college.

26. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------