# VICE-CHANCELLOR, JAMMU UNIVERSITY & ANR v. DUSHIANT KUMAR RAMPAL - **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 43 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1977-02-23 - **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwat!, A. C. Gupta, P. N. Shinghal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vice-chancellor-jammu-university-anr-v-dushiant-kumar-rampal-7160 - **Pages:** 17 ## Headnote B I & K Universities Act, 1969-SS. 13(4), 51, 52 and statlllc 24(ii)-Scope of--Vice-Cliancellor-lf co111vete11t to suspend a teacher-Suspension-Effect of. · The Jammu and Kashmir University, \vhich was a university constiluted under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965, was bifurcated into two universities-one for Jammu area and the other fur K;.u;hmir area-by an act C called the Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act, 1969. Statute 2 made under the 1965-Act required every teacher to sign the prescribed agreement of service with the University. Clause (6) of the agree1nent stipulated that in all mat· ters the teacher would s.bide by the statutes and regulations in force in the university from time to time. The proviso to this clause provided that no change in the statutes and regulations in this regard shall be deemed to have adversely affected the teacher. Section 51 of the 1969-Act provides for continuing in force the statutes and n.:gulations inade under the 1965-Act; buts. 48(2) en1powered a special officer to propose modifications necessary to bring the statutes made under the 1965Act in conformit:Y with the provisions of the 1969-Act and if such modifications \Vere approved by the Chancellor they were deemed to have been made by the competent authority under the 1969-Act. Section 52(1) of the 1969-Act provides that a11 employees of the university employed under the 1965-Act shall continue in service on the same terms and conditions as regulated their service before the commencement of the 1969-Act. Sub-section (2)_ empowers the Chancellor to allocate employees of the univeNity (other than those serving on contract) between the two new universities and the allocation so made was deen1ed to be an appointment to the post under the 1969-Act. The proviso to this sub~section provides that in making such allocations the conditions of service of en1ployment of such employees shall not be varied to their disadvantage. Sub-section ( 4) provides that all persons who \Vere employed under the former university on contract shall cease to hold such posts after 60 days from the commencement of the 1969-Act and all such contracts with the former university shall stand terminated on the expiry of 60 days. Section 13(4) of the 1969 Act empO\vers the Vice-Cl1ancellor to take such action as he deems necessary in any emergency which calls for immediate action. Section 13(6) provides that the Vice-Chancellor sha.U be responsible for the discipline of the University. Section 14(3) of the 1969-Act contained an identical provision as that contained ins .. 13(4) of the 1965-Act. To bring the statutes under the 1965-Act in conformity with the pro\isions of the 1969-Act modifications proposed by the special officer under s. 48(2) of the 1969-Act were approved by the Chancellor by his order dated Decem~ ber 24, 1969. This order substituted Chapter lV in the statutes by a new chapter. Acting under s. 52(4), the Chancellor made an order on December 24, 1969 directing that certain teachers shaH continue on the respective posts in the new Universities on the terms and conditions embodied in Schedule 1( to the order. Clause 9(ii) of the Schedule empo\vercd the Vice-Chancellor to ~uspend a teacher on grounds. among others of misconduct. 111c respondent, a teacher appointed under the 1965-Act, was transferred to the Jammu area by the Chancellor's order dated December 24, 1969. In exercise of the power under cl. 9(ii) of Schedule II of the Chancellor's order D E F G H A B c D E 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119771 3 S·C.R. and s. 13(4) of the 1969-Act, the Vice-Chancellor, by an order dated May 21, 1970, suspended the respondent from service. By another order dated June 6, 1970 the respondeni was allowed a subsistence allowance amounting to half his pay and half D.A. which was later raised to 75% of his pay and allowances. The respondent's writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the suspension order of May 21, 1970, as well as the order da ## Text _Characters 0–37,919 of 55,952. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=37919 for what follows._ ,. VICE-CHANCELLOR, JAMMU UNIVERSITY & ANR. v. DUSHIANT KUMAR RAMPAL February 23, 1977 43 A [P. N. BHAGWAT!, A. C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ;J B I & K Universities Act, 1969-SS. 13(4), 51, 52 and statlllc 24(ii)-Scope of--Vice-Cliancellor-lf co111vete11t to suspend a teacher-Suspension-Effect of. · The Jammu and Kashmir University, \vhich was a university constiluted under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965, was bifurcated into two universities-one for Jammu area and the other fur K;.u;hmir area-by an act C called the Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act, 1969. Statute 2 made under the 1965-Act required every teacher to sign the prescribed agreement of service with the University. Clause (6) of the agree1nent stipulated that in all mat· ters the teacher would s.bide by the statutes and regulations in force in the university from time to time. The proviso to this clause provided that no change in the statutes and regulations in this regard shall be deemed to have adversely affected the teacher. Section 51 of the 1969-Act provides for continuing in force the statutes and n.:gulations inade under the 1965-Act; buts. 48(2) en1powered a special officer to propose modifications necessary to bring the statutes made under the 1965Act in conformit:Y with the provisions of the 1969-Act and if such modifications \Vere approved by the Chancellor they were deemed to have been made by the competent authority under the 1969-Act. Section 52(1) of the 1969-Act provides that a11 employees of the university employed under the 1965-Act shall continue in service on the same terms and conditions as regulated their service before the commencement of the 1969-Act. Sub-section (2)_ empowers the Chancellor to allocate employees of the univeNity (other than those serving on contract) between the two new universities and the allocation so made was deen1ed to be an appointment to the post under the 1969-Act. The proviso to this sub~section provides that in making such allocations the conditions of service of en1ployment of such employees shall not be varied to their disadvantage. Sub-section ( 4) provides that all persons who \Vere employed under the former university on contract shall cease to hold such posts after 60 days from the commencement of the 1969-Act and all such contracts with the former university shall stand terminated on the expiry of 60 days. Section 13(4) of the 1969 Act empO\vers the Vice-Cl1ancellor to take such action as he deems necessary in any emergency which calls for immediate action. Section 13(6) provides that the Vice-Chancellor sha.U be responsible for the discipline of the University. Section 14(3) of the 1969-Act contained an identical provision as that contained ins .. 13(4) of the 1965-Act. To bring the statutes under the 1965-Act in conformity with the pro\isions of the 1969-Act modifications proposed by the special officer under s. 48(2) of the 1969-Act were approved by the Chancellor by his order dated Decem~ ber 24, 1969. This order substituted Chapter lV in the statutes by a new chapter. Acting under s. 52(4), the Chancellor made an order on December 24, 1969 directing that certain teachers shaH continue on the respective posts in the new Universities on the terms and conditions embodied in Schedule 1( to the order. Clause 9(ii) of the Schedule empo\vercd the Vice-Chancellor to ~uspend a teacher on grounds. among others of misconduct. 111c respondent, a teacher appointed under the 1965-Act, was transferred to the Jammu area by the Chancellor's order dated December 24, 1969. In exercise of the power under cl. 9(ii) of Schedule II of the Chancellor's order D E F G H A B c D E 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119771 3 S·C.R. and s. 13(4) of the 1969-Act, the Vice-Chancellor, by an order dated May 21, 1970, suspended the respondent from service. By another order dated June 6, 1970 the respondeni was allowed a subsistence allowance amounting to half his pay and half D.A. which was later raised to 75% of his pay and allowances. The respondent's writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the suspension order of May 21, 1970, as well as the order dated June 6, 1970 was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court. On appeal the Division Bench struck down the order of suspension as vioiative of s. 52(1) of the 1969-Act. In appeal it was contended by the respondent that ( 1) since his case was governed by s. 52 ( 1) the order of December 24, 1959 made under s. 52 ( 4) was invalid because the terms and conditions set out in Schedule II to the order altered his conditions of service; (2) statute 24(ii) was invalid because it was not within the terms of s. 48 (2) and the statute was not necessary for bringing the statutes in conformity with the provisions of the 1969-Act; (3) the po\ver to order interim suspension was a quasi-judicial power and it would not be comprehended within the language of s. 13(4) and (4) s. 52(1) entitled him to continue in service on the same terms and conditions as before and under s. 52(2) his conditions of service could not be varied to his disadvantage; there_fore neither statute 24(ii) nor s. '13(4) could confer power on the ViceChancellor to suspend him which power the Vice-Chance11or did not have under the earlier Act. Allowing the appeal, HELD : The Vice-Chancellor had the power to make the order of suspension and he was within his authority in dping so. [53C] 1. By reason of statute 2 read with cl. (6) of the form of agreement the respondent was bound by any changes made in the statutes from time to time and no change made in the statutes was to be regarded as having adversely affected him. Statutes made under the 1965-Act continued to be applicable by reason of s. 51. To bring the statutes in confirm:ity with the provisions of the 1969-Act, modifications proposed by the special officer were approved by the Chancellor by his order dated December 24, 1969 and by reason of s. 48(2) they were deemed to have been made by the competent authority under the 1969-Act. This order substituted Chapter IV in the Statutes by a new Chapter and statute 24(ii) made the same provision as cl. 9(ii) of Schedule IT to the order made under s. 52(4). If statute 24(ii) were a valid provision, the Vice-Chancellor would have power to suspend a teacher and the order of suspension against the respondent would be within the authority of the ViceChancellor. [53D-El Statute 24(ii) is a statute validly approved by the Chancellor under s. 48(2). F [54HJ G 2(a) Section 13(6) has entrusted the Vice-Chancellor with the task of maintaining discipline in the university and the entn1stment of this task carried with it, by necessary implication, the power to take whatever action was neces~ sary for maintaining the discipline. Since s. 13(6) was a new provision. it was necessary to make statutes for enabling the Vice-ChanceJlor to discharge the responsibility of maintaining the discipline and for that purpose, vesting power in him to suspend a teacher pending departmental enCjuiry against him. It was with this object of bringing the statutes in conformity with s. 13(6) that statute 24(ii) was added by way of modification in the statutes by the order of December 24, 1969. Moreover, there is nothing in the 1969-Act which militates against vesting power in the Vice-Chancellor to order interim suspension of a teacher. The ChancellOr's view that statute 24(ii) was necessary to bring i~ in conformity withs. 13(6) cannot be said to be erroneous. [54F-G] (b) If statute 24(ii) is valid, the respondent would be bound by it and in that event the _order of suspension made by the Vice~Chancellor would be H within the power conferred on him by that statute. [55B] ( c) Though the order of suspension did not recite statute 24 (ii) it is wellsettled that when an authority makes an order which is otherwise within its competence, it cannot fail merely because it purports to be made under a wrong > ) •• VICE-CHANCELLOR V. DUSHIANT KUMAR 45 prov1s1on of law, if it can be shown to be within its power under any other provision; a wrong label cannot vitiate an order which is otherwise within the A power of the authority to make it. [55B-C] P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 1052 followed. 3 (a) It is not correct to say that an order of interim suspensi9n was ~ quasijudicial order and in any event the language of s. 13(4) is suffictently w1~e and comprehensive to take within its scope and ambit every kind of action cons1de!ed. necessary by the Vice-~Chaincellor in an emergency. The order of suspension made by the Vice-Chancellor was plainly an order which he had the power to B make under s. 13(4). [55F] (b) Section 13(4) does not talk specifically of an order of interim suspen· sion of a teacher but the width and amplitude of the language of the provision would clearly include action by way of interim suspension of a teacher, W!ien there is in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, an en1ergency calling for 1m ... mediate action. [55E] ( c) Tue respondent's contention that there was no emergency which called C for immediate action on the part of the Vice-Chance11or and, therefore, the order of suspension could not be justified, cannot be entertained by this Court because no such averment had been made in the writ petition. [SSH] 4(a) The respondent could not complain of any infraction of the provisions of s. 52(1). Since statute 24(ii) was a statute validly made the Vice-Chancel· tor was entitled to make the order of suspension. The Vice.Chancellor could also avail of s. 13(4) for sustaining the order of suspension since it conferred the same power on him as s. 13(4) of the 1965-i\ct and exercise of the power 8 conferred by it as aga-inst the respondent did not involve any violation of the provisions of s. 52(1). [57D-EJ (b) Section 52 ( 1) continued the service of a teacher on the same tern1s and conditions as regulated his service before the co1nmencernent of the 1969Act and that was subject to the provisions of s. 52(2). But this subjection to the provisions of sub s. (2) did not imoort the requirement set out in the proviso that the conditions of service of a teacher shall not be varied to his disadvantage. The words "subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)" in s. 52(1) were intended merely to clarifv that a teacher shall continue in service on the sa1ne terms and conditions but subject to any al1ocation which may be made bv the Chancellor under s. 52(2). Nothing in sub-s. (1) should be construed as in anv way derogating from the uower of the Chancellor to make an aJlocation of the teache.r under s. 52(2). The proviso imposed a 1in1itation on the power of the Chancellor to make an allocation by providing that in making: such allocation the conditions of service of the employee ~hall riot he varied to his disadvantage and it could not be construed as a substantive provision adding a requirement in sub~s.(1) that even though the terms and conditions of service may nermit alteration to the disadvantage of an employee, such alteration shall be inhibited. [56H; 57A] ( c) Even if the respondent was entitled to continue in service on the same terms and conditions as before by reason of s. 52(1) these very terms and conditions provided that he would be bound by any changes which might be made in the statutes from time to time. Jf, therefore, any changes were made in the terms and conditions of service of the respondent by statutes validity made under the 1969-Act the respondent could not complain of any infraction of the provisions of s. 52(1 ). [57C-D] 5(a) The o_rder of suspension susoendcd the contract between the respondent and the university and neither the respondent was bound to perform bis duties under the contract nor was the university bound to pay any salary to him. The respondent was entitled to receive only such subsistence aUownnces as nlight _he navable under the rules rind regulations governing his terms and conditions of service. [570] (b) Where there is power in the employer either by an express term in the contract or by the rules governing the terms and conditions of service to E F (J H A B c D E F G H 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (l977J 3 S.C.R. si.1sPend an employee, the order of suspension has the cfft:.ct ot ten1pornrity suspending the relation of master and servant with the consequence that the employee is not bound to render service and the employer is not bound to pay. ln such a case the cn1ployee would not be entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer unless the contr:1ct of en1pJoyment or lhe rul~s governing the terms and conditions of service provide for payment of s-ome subsistence allowance. [58H] Jn the instant case the Vice·Chanccllor had the po\ver to suspend the respondent under statute 24(ii) and the respondent could not claim payment of hi~ salary during the period of suspension. V. P. Gilulroniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1970] 3 SCR 448 followed. C1vn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1739 of 1973. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.1973 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9 /72) F. S. Nariman, 0. C. Mathur, P. N. Tiwari and D. N. Mishra, for the appellants. Dushia11t Kumar Rampa! respondent. ,(in person) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J., We pronounced our order on this appeal on 17th December, 1976 and we now proceed to give our reasons. We may point out that the respondent was not represented by a lawyer and he argued ~ase in person and though he i~ a lay man, not well versed in the science of law and in the art and skill of advocacy, we must admit that he argued his case with conspicuous ability. Prior to 5th September, 1969 there was only one University for the entire territory of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, namely, the University of Jammu & Kashmir. It was constituted under the Jammu & Kashmir University Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965) and, as provided in section 20, its central authorities included the Senate and the Central Council. The Cenlral Council was the executive body of the University and it had the power inter a/ia to appoint teachers and to define their duties. The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in English by the Central Council on 25th April, 1966 and after his period of probation was over he was confirmed as lecturer with effect from 29th April, 1967. The conditions of service of the respondent, like those of other confirmed teachers, were regulated by the Statutes made by the Senate from time to time under the provisions of Act of 1965. Statute 2 provided that every salaried teache.r of the University shall have to execute a written contract with the University and the conditions of service of teachers appointed by the University shall be those embodied in the agreement of service annexed to the Statutes and every teacher shall ~xecute such agreement before he enters upon his duties or as soon as possible thereafter. It appears that though Statute 2 required an agreement of service to be executed by a teacher, no such agreement of service was execntcd by the respondent on his appointment as VICE-CHANCELLOR v. DUSTllANT KUMAR (Bhagwati, !.) 47 lecturer. But it was common ground between the parties that !he conditions of service of the respondent were governed by the provision set out in the form of agreement of service annexed to the Statutes. Clause (6) of this agreement-and this clause admittedly governed the respondent-stipulated that in all matters, the teacher \VOuld "abide by the Statutes and Regulations from time to time in force in the University, and in particular, by those determining his/ B bet grade, increment, conditions of service, rules of superannuation and provident fund rules, provided that no change in the Statutes and Regulations in this regard shall be deemed to have adversely affected the teacher." The respondent was thus clearly bound by any changes which might be made in the Statutes from time to time and no change made in the Statutes was to be regarded as having adversely affected the respondent and he could not complain against it. The case of C the respondent was that he saNsfactorily carried on his duties as lecturer and earned his increments from year to year. On 5th September, 1969 the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir promulgated Ordinance No. 10 of 1969 establishing in place of the University of Jammu & Kashmir, two separate universities, namely, the University of Kashmir for the Kashmir division and the University D of Jammu for the Jam1uu division of the State. This Ordinance was replaced by the Jammu & Kashmir University Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1969) which came into force on 30th October, 1969. The Act of 1969 made a slight departure from the earlier Act 'in the constitution of the various authorities of each University. Section 20 of the Act of 1969 provided that the authorities of each university shall include the University Council and the SyndiE catc. The University Council was constituted supreme authority of the university while the Syndicate was entrusted with the chief executive authority. Whereas under the earlier Act, the power to appoint all teachers of the University was entrusted to the. Central Council, there was bifurcation of this power between the University Council and the Syndicate under the Act of 1969. The University Council F was given the power to appoint teachers of the status of a reader and above while the power to appoint teachers below the status of a reader was entrusted to the Syndicate. The Syndicate was thus the authority under the Act of 1969 vested with the power to appoint and that powct would also carry with it the power to dismiss teachers below. the status of a reader. Since the Universi1y of Jammu & Kashmir came to an end on the repeal of the Act of 1965 a11d two G new universities, one of Kashnlir and the other of Jammu, were established, some provision had to be made in the Act of 1969 for continuance of the Statutes and Regulations so that there might be no hi~tns ?~ break c~using dislocation in the functioning of the two new urnvers1t•es. Section 51 of the Act of 1969. therefore. provided tliat ~11 Sta'.utes and Regulations made under the Act of 1965 and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1969 shall. so far as may be consistent with the provisions of the latter Act, continue to be in force in each University and section 48, sub-sec. (2) gave R pow~r to the special officer to "examine the Statutes and Regulations contmned under section 51 of this Act and prnposc such modificn- A B c D E F G H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS £1 ~771 3 s.c.R. lions, alterations and additions therein as may be necessary to bring such Statutes and Regulations in conformity with the provisions of this Act" and provided that the modifications, alterations and additions proposed by the Speaial officer shall, if approved by the ViceChancellor, be deemed to have been made by the competent authority under the Act of 1969 and shall continue in force until altered or superseded by the authority constituted under the Act of 1969. There was also the problem of ensuring continuance of service of the existing employees of the University of Jammu & Kashmir and their allocation between the two succeeding univerties and this problem was solved by the enactment of section 52 in the Act of 1969. That section, in so far as material, provided as follows : "52. Continuance of service of the existing employees and their allocation-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any Statute or Regulation made thereunder or in any other law for the time being in force. ( 1) all employees of the University of Jammu and Kashmir constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965 (other than those serving on contract or on deputation in the University or those serving in the Publication Bureau of the University) who immediately before the commencement of this Act, were holding or discharging the duties of any post of office in connection with the affairs of the said University shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), continue in service on the same terms and conditions as regulated their service before such commencement ; (2) the Chancellor may in consultation with the proChancellor by order allocate the employees of the University of Jammu & Kashmir (other than those serving on contract or deputation in the University or those serving in the Publication Bureau of the Unliversity) between the University of Kashmir and the University of Jammu constituted under this Act in such manner as he may consider necessary and every such allocation shall be deemed to be an appointment, transfer or promotion as the case may be, to the post or office by the competent authority under this Act : Provided that in making such allocations the conditions of service of employment of such employees shall not be varied to their disadvantage; (3) x x x x x ( 4) all persons wi)o immediately . before t~e com~ence ment of this Act were holdmg or d1schar!png the duties of any post or office in connection with. the affairs of the University of Jam mu and Kashmir, on ' • VICE-CHANCELLOR v. DUSllIANT KUMAR (Bhagwati, J.) contract basis or by virtue of their deputation to such posts or offices from other services in the State. unless otherwise ordered by the Chancellor after consulting the Pro-Chancellor, shall cease to hold such posts or to discharge such duties after 60 days from the commencement of this Act and all such contracts with or deputations to the University of Jammu & Kashmir shall stand terminated with effect from the expiry of the said period of 60 days." 49 Since most of the teachers had entered into an agreement of service with the Uruversity of Jammu & Kashmir as provided in Statute 2 and the rest were also treated as having entered into such agreement of service by reason of the compulsive force of Statute 2 though in fact such agreement of service had not been executed by them, perhaps due to inadvertence, the Chancellor took the view that all of them held their posts on contract basis and hence, proceeding on the assumption that sub-sec. ( 4) of section 52 was attracted in their case, he made an order dated 24th December, 1969 directing that the 'appointments of the teachers set out in Schedule (1), which also included the respondent, shall continue on the respective posts mentioned in that schedule on the terms and conditions embodied in Schedule IJI with effect from 9th January, 1970. Schedule II contained the terms and conditions on which teachers mentioned in Schedule I were continued in service of the University of Jammu and clause 9(ii) of that Schedule read as follows : "The Vice-Chancellor may when he deems it necessary suspend the teacher on grounds of misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency or unsatisfactory performance of duty, when he suspends the teacher he shall report it to the university Council/Syndicate at the next meeting."_ The respondent and some other teachers were of the v~w that the terms and conditions set out in Schedule II effected a change in their conditions of service to their prejudice and hence they made a representation to the Chancellor and other authorities of the University of Jammu. It does not appear from the record as to what happened to this representation but presumably it was rejected. Now we come to the events which formed the ~mmediate cause for the predicament of the respondent. It appears that certain complaints were received by the Vice-Chancellor against the conduct of the respondent and 'the Vice-Chancellor took the view that these 7omplaints were of a serious character and needed to be enquired tnto and pending such enquiry, it was not desirable that the respondent should be allowed to continue to work as a lecturer. The Vice- ~hancellor accordingly passed an order dated 21st May, 1970 directmg that the respondent be placed under suspension with immediate ~ffect. !his order was purported to be passed by the Vice-Chancellor tn exercise of the powers vested in him under clause 9(ii) of Schedule II of the Order dated 24th December, 1969 and section 13 (4) of the Act of 1969. It may be convenient at this stage, before we proceed A B c D E F G A B c D E F G H 50 SUPREME CdURT REPORTS U977J 3 S·C.R. further, to refer to section 13 ( 4), since considerable argument before ns tuf!1ed upon it Section 13 deals. with the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor and sub-sec!Ion ( 4) of that section reads as follows "(4) '.he Vice-Chancellor may take action as he deems !lecessary m ~ny emergency which, in bis opinion, calls for 1mmed1ate actJon. He shall in such a case and as soon as may be thereafter; report .his ~ction ·to the officer, authority or other body of the UruverSity concerned who or which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter." Sub-section (6) of section l3 is also material and ;tis in the follow.ing terms : "( 6) The Vicc-'Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the University Council and the Syndicate of the University concerned regard;'ng the appointment, dismissal and suspension of persons in the employment of the University and shall exercise general control over the affairs of the University. He shall be responsible for the discipline of · the University in accordance w;th this Act, Statutes and Regulations." The Vice~Chanccllor, immed;'ately after passing· the Order of suspension, placed it before the Syndicate at its next meeting held on 24th June, 1970. The respondent had also in the meantime subntltted his representation against the Order of suspension and this representation also came up before this meeting of the Syndicate. The Syndi'Catc considered the Order of suspension made by the ViccChancellor as also the representation submitted by the respondent and passed a resolution rejecting the representation of the respondent recording the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor and directing that articles of charge be framed and communicated to the respondent and he may be requi~ed to submit his explanation in writing and a committee consisting of the Vice-Oancellor and three other persons be appointed to investigate the matter and submit its finding to the Syndicate. The Registrar of the University thereafter passed an order dated 6th June, 1970 declaring that, during the period of suspension, the respondent would not be ent;tJed to get full salary but he would be paid only subsistence allowance at an amount equal to half pay and half dearness allowance in accordance with the usual practice followed by the University. It may be pointed out that with effect from 21st May, 1971, that is after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of suspension, the subsistence allowance payable to the respondent was raised to 75% of the pay and dearness allowance. A chargesheet containing twelve charnes was then gi'Ven to the respondent and he was required to submit his explanation. The respondent gave his explanation to the charges levelled against him and while doing so,. he also ob.iected to the constitution of the Committee which was appointed to enquire into the charges. In consequence of his objection, the constitution of the committee was changed and the Vice-'Chuncellor was kept out of it. The enquiry by the Committee ' , • VICE'CJ{ANCELLOR v. DUSIUAN'f KUMAR (Bliagwati, J.) 51 commenced on :J2th March, 197 l and it went on for some time, but before it could. be completed, the respondent filed a writ petitil::m in the High. Court of J ammu & Kashmir challenging t11e validity of the Order dated 24th December, 1969, the Order dated 6th June, 1970 in regard .to payment of subsistence allowance and also impugning the legality of the enquiry proceedings. There were varil)us grounds taken by the respondent in the writ peMion but it is pot necessary to refer to them in detail having regard to the course which the appeal has taken before us. The writ petition was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court and by a judgment dated 28th April, 1972 the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. The respondent there upon preferred a Letters Patent appeal in the Hi'gh Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the departmental enquiry which was started against the respondent was completed and the committee made a report absolving the respondent of all the charges except charges Nos. 1 and 12 of which the respondent was found guilty. The syndicate, after considering the report of the committee, resolved to issue a notice to the respondent to show cause why "the punishment for termination of his servi1:es from the University be not imposed on him" on the ground of charges Nos. l and 12. Pursuant to this resolution, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent which led to the filing of a petition by the respondent in the Letters Patent appeal for taking notice of these subsequent events. The respondent in this petiti'on challenged the report of the committee as also the resolution of the Syndicate on various grounds which are no longer material. The University filed its reply to the petition denying the allegations made against the committee and disputing the grounds on which the validity of the enquiry was challenged on behalf of the respmident. The Letters Patent appeal thereafter came to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench, by a judgment dated 22nd October, 1973, took the view that the Order dated 24th December, 1969 was violative of secti'on 52, sub-section (1) of the Act of 1969 and the Order of suspension dated 21st May, 1970 was "defective for want of jurisdiction and other legal infirmities" and these two orders were accordingly quashed and set aside by the Division Bench. The Divist\)n Bench also held that "as a necessary corollary to our finding& on the two impugned orders and also in consequence of our observations on the legal aspect of the show cause notice issued to the appellant to terminate his service, the same also deserves to be quashed." The Division Bench accordingly allowed the appeal, set asi