Registar Did Not Have Power to Initiate Disciplinary Action: Calcutta HC Quashes Suspension Order of Visva Bharati University Asst. Professor

Registar Did Not Have Power to Initiate Disciplinary Action: Calcutta HC Quashes Suspension Order of Visva Bharati University Asst. Professor

Case: Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal v. Visva-Bharati & Ors

Coram: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

Case No.: WPA 1668 of 2022

Court Observation: “This Court is of the view that since the Registrar (Acting) did not have the power to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, who is an Adhyapaka of the University, the defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and nullifies all subsequent steps taken thereafter. The Charge-sheet and the order of suspension are hence without authority and should be quashed on that basis. In other words, to quote the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, if the foundation of the action is removed, the superstructure must fall”

“..even if it is assumed that the Registrar was acting under the direction of the Vice-Chancellor in issuing the impugned notices, the procedure provided under sections 38 and 14 of the Act, which empowered the Vice-Chancellor to suspend an Adhyapaka or take steps against an employee, has not been followed”

“The Office Notes relied upon by counsel appearing for the University shows handwritten endorsements with the words “Vice-Chancellor” on the notes but under the letter head of the “Visva-Bharati Establishment -III”. These Notes cannot be taken as evidence that the Vice-Chancellor was the directing authority in connection with the main action”

“Significantly, the list of documents by which the article of charge was framed only consists of the show-cause notice and the reply of the petitioner to such show-cause notice. There are no other documents included in the list for proposing the charge of misconduct against the petitioner”

Previous Posts

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Details Of SC Collegiums December 2018 Meeting

Passport Renewal Request Cant Be Rejected On Sole Basis of Pendency of Criminal Cases: Orissa High Court

Victim Cant Prefer Appeal U/S 372 CrPC Proviso Challenging Adequacy of Sentence Imposed On Convict: Kerala High Court

Stand of Defendant Irrelevant When Court Is Dealing With Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: Delhi High Court

Madras High Court Evokes Doctrine of Approbate & Reprobate, Holds a Party Can’t Take Contradictory Stands in Different Courts

Person Ineligible U/s 29A IBC To Submit Resolution Plan Cannot Propose Scheme Of Compromise & Arrangement U/s 230 Companies Act 2013: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Courts Exist For Convenience of Litigants, Not Advocates: Bombay HC Rejects Bar Associations Plea against Establishment of Court at Wai