# Sachin Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 560
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-11
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2755 of 2023
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50002
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Service Law- Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Uttar
Pradesh
Technical
University Act, 2000- Sections 7, 8-Writ
petition against order of suspension of
petitioner who was appointed as Registrar
as well order passed by the Chancellor
constituting
inquiry
committee
for
inquiring into the alleged misconduct of
the petitioner- The Chancellor has been
vested with the authority to place the
officer of the University concerned, in
certain circumstances, under suspension
and the Chancellor also empowered to
order an inquiry which may be thought
proper for ascertaining as to whether the
officer has misconducted himself within
the meaning of 'misconduct' as given in
Regulation 2.03 - The proceeding as
contemplated in Regulation 2.03 read
with Regulation 2.04 are in relation to
removal of an officer of the University as
defined in Section 7 and that would mean
that
Chancellor
can
initiate
the
proceedings only in respect of his removal
from the office of Registrar of the
University and not for his removal or for
effecting
any
punishment
as
a
Government servant for which it is only
the appointing authority of the petitioner
as a Government servant, i.e. the St.
Government who can take action and pass
appropriate orders-No interference with
the order of suspension and the order
appointing enquiry committee which are
impugned in the writ petition. (Para 2, 11,
15, 16, 17, 28)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

## Text

560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. For the aforesaid reasons, we are
not inclined to take any view other than the
view
taken
by
learned
Central
Administrative Tribunal while passing the
judgment and order.

25. The writ petition, in our opinion,
lacks merit which is hereby dismissed.

26. We have been informed that the
result of respondent no.1-claimant has been
declared wherein he has been declared
passed, however, he is not being offered
appointment to the post in question. Thus
we direct that in case there is no other legal
impediment, the respondent no.1-claimant
shall be offered appointment to the post in
question within a period of three weeks
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 560
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 2755 of 2023

Sachin Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Mehrotra, Anant Khanna, Harsh Vardhan
Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Lalta Prasad Misra,
Rajesh Tewari

Service Law- Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Uttar
Pradesh
Technical
University Act, 2000- Sections 7, 8-Writ
petition against order of suspension of
petitioner who was appointed as Registrar
as well order passed by the Chancellor
constituting
inquiry
committee
for
inquiring into the alleged misconduct of
the petitioner- The Chancellor has been
vested with the authority to place the
officer of the University concerned, in
certain circumstances, under suspension
and the Chancellor also empowered to
order an inquiry which may be thought
proper for ascertaining as to whether the
officer has misconducted himself within
the meaning of 'misconduct' as given in
Regulation 2.03 - The proceeding as
contemplated in Regulation 2.03 read
with Regulation 2.04 are in relation to
removal of an officer of the University as
defined in Section 7 and that would mean
that
Chancellor
can
initiate
the
proceedings only in respect of his removal
from the office of Registrar of the
University and not for his removal or for
effecting
any
punishment
as
a
Government servant for which it is only
the appointing authority of the petitioner
as a Government servant, i.e. the St.
Government who can take action and pass
appropriate orders-No interference with
the order of suspension and the order
appointing enquiry committee which are
impugned in the writ petition. (Para 2, 11,
15, 16, 17, 28)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J. & Hon'ble Om Prakash
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned counsel representing the petitioner,
learned State Counsel representing the
respondent nos.1 and 4, Shri S.K. Kalia,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Rajesh Tiwari for the respondent no.2, Shri
L.P. Misra, leaned counsel representing the
respondent no.3 and Shri Atul Dwivedi,
learned counsel representing the respondent
no.5.
4 All. Sachin Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561

2. Proceedings of this petition have
been instituted under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assailing the order
dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Chancellor
of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical
University,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow
(hereinafter referred to as ' the Chancellor'),
whereby the petitioner, who was appointed
as Registrar of the said University, has been
placed under suspension.

Another order which is under challenge
in this writ petition is dated 31.03.2023
passed by the Chancellor constituting a three
member inquiry committee for inquiring into
the alleged misconduct of the petitioner while
working as Registrar of the University.

3. It has been argued by Shri Gaurav
Mehrotra that the petitioner is a member of
Provincial Civil Services and the conditions
of his service including disciplinary matters
are governed by the provisions contained in
the rules made under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, namely, the Uttar
Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch)
Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules
1982')
and
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred
to 'Rules 1999'). It has been argued further
by Shri Mehrotra that under the Rules
1982, the appointing authority of the
petitioner is Hon'ble the Governor and in
terms of the Uttar Pradesh Rules of
Business, 1975 framed under Article 166
(3) of the Constitution of India, matters
relating to disciplinary action etc. of the
members of Provincial Civil Service has to
go up to Hon'ble the Chief Minister for
approval and, accordingly, the Chancellor,
not being his appointing authority, is not
empowered either to place him under
suspension or to constitute any inquiry
committee.

4. It has also been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
suspension of a government servant can be
resorted
to
in
accordance
with
the
provisions contained in Rule 4 of Rules
1999, according to which a government
servant can be placed under suspension
only at the discretion of the appointing
authority and not at the instance of any
other authority. His further submission is
that disciplinary proceedings under Rules
1999 can be instituted only by the
disciplinary authority and not by any other
authority. His submission, thus, is that since
the Chancellor of the University is not the
appointing authority or the disciplinary
authority of the petitioner, the order of
suspension and the order constituting the
inquiry
committee,
which
are
under
challenge
in
this
writ
petition,
are
completely without jurisdiction.

5. It has further been argued by Shri
Mehrotra that the petitioner's appointment
as Registrar in the University was made on
deputation and as per well settled service
jurisprudence governing the disciplinary
action against a deputationist, it is the
parent department which is empowered to
initiate disciplinary proceeding even in a
case where the deputationist is said to have
misconducted himself while working with
the borrowing department. In this view, the
submission is that even if the petitioner,
who has been working as Registrar in the
University
which
is
the
borrowing
department,
was
found
to
have
misconducted himself while discharging his
functions as Registrar of the University, the
authorities of the University including the
Chancellor could have apprised the said
alleged misconduct on the part of the
petitioner to the State Government which is
the parent department of the petitioner and
it is only in the discretion of the State
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government any disciplinary proceeding
could have been instituted. In such a view,
the submission is that both the orders, i.e.
the order of suspension and the order
constituting
the
disciplinary
inquiry
committee passed by the Chancellor are
completely without jurisdiction and, hence
are not sustainable.

6. Per contra, Shri S.K. Kalia, learned
Senior
Advocate
representing
the
Chancellor has submitted that as a matter of
fact though the appointment of the
petitioner is on deputation in the University
as Registrar, however, such appointment on
deputation is not to be construed as
appointment on deputation in the usual
sense of the phrase "appointment on
deputation" for the reason that appointment
of
Registrar
in
the
University
is
contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh
Technical University Act, 2000 (hereinafter
referred to as 'University Act 2000') and
accordingly his appointment is to be
governed by the provisions of the said Act.
Drawing our attention to the provisions
contained in Section 7 of the University Act
2000, it has been argued by learned Senior
Advocate
that
the
Registrar
of
the
University is an officer of the University in
terms of Section 7 (e) and further that the
Chancellor, in respect of the University,
exercises his authority and power as vested
in him under Section 8.

7. According to the learned Senior
Advocate sub-section (4) of Section 8 of
the University Act, 2000 provides that the
Chancellor shall have such other powers as
may be conferred on him by or under the
Act or the Regulations framed under the
said enactment. Our attention has also been
drawn to Regulation 2.03 and 2.04 of the
Regulations of the University, 2010 which
fall in Chapter 2 and deal with the officers
of the University. According to the Senior
Advocate,
Regulation
2.03
clearly
empowers the Chancellor to remove any
officer (as defined and enlisted in Section 7
of the University Act, 2000) after forming
an opinion that the officer concerned has
either willfully omitted or has refused to
carry out the provisions of University Act,
2000 or he has abused the power vested in
him. The emphasis by learned Senior
Advocate is on the words "after making
such inquiry" occurring in Regulation 2.03
and accordingly it has been stated that
removal of an officer of the University by
the Chancellor can be made after such
inquiry as is thought proper by the
Chancellor. He has further stated that in a
situation where the appointing authority of
such an officer as defined in Section 7 of
the University Act, 2000 is Chancellor
himself, he can remove the officer by
passing an order to that effect and in a
situation where the appointing authority of
an officer of the University is the State
Government, the Chancellor can direct the
State Government to remove the officer
concerned.

8. We have also been taken to the
provisions contained in Regulation 2.04 of
the Regulations, according to which the
Chancellor possesses the power to suspend
such an officer of the University during
pendency or in contemplation of any
inquiry referred to in Regulation 2.03. On
the aforesaid submissions, it has been
argued by the learned Senior Advocate
representing Hon'ble the Chancellor that
the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Chancellor does not have
any jurisdiction or authority or power to
place the petitioner under suspension or to
constitute
an
inquiry
committee
is
absolutely misconceived for the reason that
Chancellor has been vested with adequate
4 All. Sachin Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
authority not only to pass an order of
suspension but also to constitute an inquiry
committee in relation to an officer of the
University as defined in Section 7 of the
University Act, 2000.

9. The arguments made by learned
Senior
Advocate
on
behalf
of
the
Chancellor has been reiterated by Dr. L.P.
Misra representing the respondent no.3 and
Shri
Atul
Dwivedi
learned
counsel
representing the respondent no.5.

10. We have considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel
representing the respective parties and have
also perused the records available before us
on this writ petition. We have also
extensively gone through various statutory
provisions contained in Act 2000, the
Regulation framed under Act 2000, Rules
1982 and Rules, 1999.

11. The question which falls for our
consideration in this case is as to whether
Chancellor has been vested with any lawful
authority to place an officer of the
University
under
suspension
and
to
constitute
an
inquiry
committee
for
inquiring into the alleged misconduct on
the part of the officer of the University
concerned.

12. It is not in dispute that in terms of
provisions contained in Section 7(e) of the
University Act, 2000, Registrar is one of
the officers of the University along with the
Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the ProVice-Chancellor, the Finance Officer and
the Controller of Examination. Section 7 of
the University Act, 2000 is extracted
hereinbelow :-

"7. The following shall be the officers
of the University-

(a) the Chancellor;

(b) the Vice-Chancellor;

(c) the Pro-Vice-Chancellor;

(d) the Finance Officer;

(e) the Registrar;

(f) the Controller of Examination;

(g) such other officers of the
University as may be declared by the
regulations to be the officers of the
University."

13. The Chancellor, under the
University Act, 2000 has been defined in
Section 8, according to which the Hon'ble
Governor of the State is the Chancellor of
the University. It further provides that the
Chancellor by virtue of his office shall be
the Head of the University. Certain powers
have been vested in the Chancellor by
Section 8 of the University Act, 2000.
Section 8 of the University Act, 2000 reads
as under :-

"8. (1) The Governor shall be the
Chancellor of the University. He shall by
virtue of his office, be the head of the
University and shall, when present,
preside
at
any
convocation of
the
University.

(2) Every proposal for the conferment
of an honorary degree shall be subject to
the confirmation of the Chancellor.

(3) It shall be the duty of the ViceChancellor to furnish such information or
records relating to the administration of
the affairs of the University as the
Chancellor may call for.

(4) The Chancellor shall have such
other powers as may be conferred on him
by or under this Act or the Regulations."

14. As per the aforequoted provision
contained in sub-section (4) of Section 8,
Chancellor exercises such powers as are
conferred on him by or under the
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
University Act, 2000 or by the Regulations
framed under the said enactment. So far as
conferment of powers under the Act is
concerned, the Chancellor has been vested
with the authority for confirming every
proposal for conferment of an honorary
degree and to call for records and
information from the office of the Vice
Chancellor of the University. In terms of
sub regulation (4) of Regulation 8,
Chancellor, as observed above, can exercise
such powers which are conferred on him by
or under the Regulations. Regulations 2.03
and 2.04 of the Regulations framed under
the Gautam Buddh Technical University,
2010 are relevant which are extracted
hereinbelow :-

"2.03 If in the opinion of the
Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor or any
other Officer of the University willfully
omits or refuses to carry out the provisions
of the Act, or abuses the powers vested in
him and if it appears to the Chancellor
that the continuance of such officer in the
office is detrimental to the interests of the
University, the Chancellor may, after
making such inquiry as he deems proper,
by order, remove the said Officer in cases
where he himself is the appointing
authority or where the State Government
is the appointing authority, direct such
authority to remove the Officers.

2.04 The Chancellor shall have
power to suspend such Officer during the
pendency or in contemplation of any
enquiry referred to in regulation 2.03."

15. When we peruse the aforequoted
provisions contained in Regulation 2.03
what we find is that in a situation where the
Vice Chancellor or any other officer of the
University (including the Registrar of the
University as well) is found willfully
omitting or refusing to carry out the
provisions of University Act, 2000 or he is
found to have misused the powers vested in
him or if it appears to the Chancellor that
continuance
of
such
officer
in
the
University is detrimental to the interests of
the University, the Chancellor has been
vested with ample powers to remove such
an officer. In a case where the Chancellor
himself is the appointing authority he can
pass the order removing the officer
concerned himself, however, where the
State
Government
is
the
appointing
authority, the Chancellor can direct such
authority to remove the officer concerned.

16. Regulation 2.04 provides that the
Chancellor will have power to suspend
such officer during the pendency or in
contemplation of inquiry under Regulation
2.03. We may notice at this juncture that
any removal of an officer of the University
is permissible under Regulation 2.03 only
after making an inquiry as may be thought
proper by the Chancellor and only once the
Chancellor forms an opinion about the
misconduct, as detailed in Regulation 2.03,
of the officer concerned. Thus, removal of
an officer of the University is not
permissible without an inquiry which may
be thought appropriate to be conducted by
the Chancellor. Regulation 2.04 has to be
read in conjunction with Regulation 2.03
which provides that in a situation where
any inquiry envisaged under regulation
2.03
is
either
pending
or
is
in
contemplation, the Chancellor in his
discretion can suspend the officer of the
University against whom the inquiry is
pending or is in contemplation.

17. Accordingly, we are of the opinion
that in respect of an officer of the
University as defined in Section 7 of the
University Act, 2000, the Chancellor has
been vested with the authority to place the
4 All. Sachin Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
565
officer of the University concerned, in
certain circumstances, under suspension
and the Chancellor is also empowered to
order for an inquiry which may be thought
proper for ascertaining as to whether the
officer of the University concerned has
misconducted himself within the meaning
of 'misconduct' as given in Regulation 2.03
of the Regulations.

18. We may further notice that the
Registrar of the University is appointed by
the State Government on such terms and
conditions as may be prescribed. Section 13
of the University Act, 2000 clearly states
that Registrar shall be a full time officer of
the University and shall be appointed by
the State Government. Section 13 of the
University
Act,
2000
is
extracted
hereinbelow:-

"13. (1) The Registrar shall be a
whole-time officer of the University.

(2) The Registrar shall be appointed
by the State Government such terms and
conditions as may be prescribed.

(3) The Registrar shall have the
power to authenticate records on behalf
of the University.

(4)
The
Registrar
shall
be
responsible for the due custody of the
records and the common seal of the
University.
He
shall
be
ex-officio
Secretary of the Executive Council and
shall be bound to place before the
Executive Council all such information
as may be necessary for transaction of
its business. He shall also perform such
other duties as may be prescribed or
required from time to time, by the
Executive
Council
or
the
ViceChancellor but he shall not, by virtue of
this sub-section, be entitled to vote.

(5) The Registrar shall not be
offered
nor
shall
he
accept
any
remuneration for any work in the
University save such as may be provided
by the Regulations."

19. Apart from Section 13 of the
University Act, 2000, we may also extract
Regulation 2.21 of the Regulations,
according to which the Registrar is to be
appointed by the State Government on
deputation from amongst the members of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Civil
Service
(Executive Branch). It further provides
that in case the office of Registrar is
vacant and Registrar is on leave or in a
certain other circumstances, the duties of
the office of Registrar shall be performed
by such person as the Vice Chancellor
may appoint for the purpose. The
amended
Regulation
2.21
of
the
Regulations is quoted hereinunder:-

"Registrar will be appointed by the
State Government on deputation from
Uttar Pradesh Civil (Executive Branch)
Service. When the office of the Registrar
is vacant or when the Registrar is on leave
by reasons of illness, absence or due to
any other cause is unable to perform the
duties of his office, the duties of the office
of Registrar shall be performed by such
person
as
the
Vice-Chancellor
may
appoint for the purpose."

20. We may also refer to the
provisions contained in Regulation 14.03
which provides that government servants
serving the University on deputation shall
remain subject to the Government leave
rules.

21. Accordingly, as per the scheme of
the Act 2000 and the Regulations framed
thereunder, though appointment of the
Registrar in the University is on deputation,
however, this deputation cannot be termed
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be a "deputation" in the traditional sense
of the word in which it is generally
understood inasmuch as the consent of the
University, that of the deputationist and the
State Government for placing a member of
Provincial Civil Service as Registrar in the
University is not required. It is the authority
available to the State Government under
Section 13 to appoint a member of Provincial
Civil Service as Registrar of the University.
Accordingly, the general rules or law relating
to a deputationist in the matter of disciplinary
proceedings will have no application in this
case. The State Government under Section 13
places its officer on deputation with a
University, however, while he remains posted
or placed in the University, he is subject to
certain supervision and control of the
Chancellor under the Act 2000. One of the
supervisions
as
envisaged
under
the
Regulations read with section 8 of the
University Act, 2000 is the proceeding which
may be initiated for removal of the Registrar
from the University.

22. As already discussed above, we are
of the considered opinion that Regulation
2.03 read with Regulation 2.04 empowers the
Chancellor to initiate action for removal of
the Registrar from his office from the
University and in that process, it is not only
that Chancellor can order for any inquiry, but
he can also place the Registrar under
suspension.

23. In the aforesaid view of the matter,
we are not convinced by the submissions
made by learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the order of suspension and the order
constituting the inquiry against the petitioner
in this case is without jurisdiction.

24. However, we may clarify certain
aspects which have cropped up during the
course of arguments. As already discussed
above, the proceeding as contemplated in
Regulation 2.03 read with Regulation 2.04
are in relation to removal of an officer of
the University as defined in Section 7 and
that would mean that Chancellor can
initiate the proceedings only in respect of
his removal from the office of Registrar of
the University and not for his removal or
for
effecting
any
punishment
as
a
Government servant for which it is only the
appointing authority of the petitioner as a
Government
servant,
i.e.
the
State
Government who can take action and pass
appropriate orders.

25. Having observed as above, we also
find that there may be a situation where a
Registrar appointed in the University by the
State Government is found indulging in gross
misconduct and in such a situation it is not
that he shall be immune for any such
misconduct, however, it is not the Chancellor
rather the State Government which is
empowered and which will have jurisdiction
to take action if it is so warranted in the facts
of particular case.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner at
this juncture submits that the petitioner does
not have desire any more to continue to
remain posted in the University and once the
order of suspension was passed and charge of
the post of Registrar of the University, by
means of an order dated 25.03.2023 passed
by Vice Chancellor, was taken over from him
and handed over to another officer, he
approached the State Government with the
prayer to treat the order dated 25.03.2023 as
the order of his repatriation to the State
Government and accordingly it has been
prayed that he may be ordered to be placed at
the disposal of the State Government.

27. So far as the aforesaid submission
and prayer made by the learned counsel for
4 All. Chandra Prakash Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
567
the petitioner is concerned, we at this
juncture are not in a position to deal with
any such prayer for the reason that in the
writ petition no such prayer has been made.
It is, in fact a matter between the petitioner
and the State Government. We thus observe
that we have not considered this prayer on
merits at this juncture.

28. For the reasons aforesaid, we do
not find ourselves to be in agreement with
the submissions and arguments made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and thus
are not persuaded to interfere with the order
of suspension and the order appointing
enquiry committee which are impugned in
the writ petition.

29. The writ petition is, thus,
dismissed.

30. However, we may direct that the
time period as contemplated in the order
passed by Hon'ble the Chancellor for
completion of the inquiry against the
petitioner, i.e. period of three months shall
be strictly adhered to. In case the inquiry is
not completed within the aforesaid period,
it will be open to the petitioner to approach
the Court. The petitioner shall, however,
co-operate with the inquiry.

31. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 567
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 4856 of 2006

Chandra Prakash Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Srivastava, R.V. Singh, Sanjay Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., H.S. Jain, Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, Raj
Kr Singh Suryavanshi

A.
Education/Service
Law
-
Direct
recruitment
-
Promotion
-
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - In
view of the schedule of the act and the
rules, it is evident that the intention of the
legislature is not to give freehand to the
Management.
It
has
to
send
only
information to the Inspector and it does
not have any authority either in the
Principal Act or in the Rules for promotion
of a teacher. It is simply duty to send all
the information of the teachers who are
eligible for promotion irrespective of the
fact whether they have applied or not.
(Para 18)

The District Inspector of Schools vide letter
dated 5.7.2003 asked the Manager of the
Institution
in
regard
to
position
of
the
sanctioned post of Lecturer in the college in
question. Vide letter dated 3.1.2005 the
Principal of the institution sent information to
the effect that in the college there are five
sanctioned post of Lecturer and further the post
of Lecturer (Civics) which has fallen vacant is to
be filled up by way of promotion by promoting
the petitioner. The Manager of the College has
sent a letter to the DIOS along with relevant
documents as required for purpose of promoting
the petitioner. Vide order dated 19.1.2005, the
D.I.O.S. Unnao had granted the selection grade
to the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Teacher. (Para 15)

When the claim of the petitioner was processed
and forwarded to the District Inspector of
Schools for promotion on the post of Lecturer
(Civics)
on
the
recommendation
of
U.P.
Secondary Selection Board, the post was filled
by direct recruitment in the year 2006 ignoring
the claim of the petitioner for promotion,
learned Standing Counsel did not show any
documents to establish that claim of the
petitioner has been considered. (Para 16)