1 2025:CGHC:3576-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 28 of 2025 1 - The Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalay Khairagarh Through Its Registrar, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Vice Chancellor Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (The Than Prof. Mandwi Singh Is Not Present Vice Chancellor) 3 - The Registrar Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus Prof. Dr. T. Unnikrishnan S/o Shri K.K. Nair Aged About 61 Years Professor And H.O.D. Karnatak Music And Dean, Music Faculty At Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, R/o Teacher Colony, University Campus, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.01.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.21 18:03:58 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants on I.A. No.01/2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The appeal is heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3955/2015 (Prof. Dr. T. Unnikrishnan vs. The Indira kala Sangit Vishwavidyalay and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / respondent herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with direction to the writ petitioner to make a representation before the University and University to consider and decide the said representation in an objective manner. 4. The facts of the case are that in the year 2015, the writ petitioner was posted on the post of Professor and HOD in Vocal Karnatak Music faculty under the respondents / appellants herein. During his service tenure, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension vide its order dated 28/31.08.2015 and also the Article of Charge was issued on 12.10.2015 by the Registrar of the University making certain allegations against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed WPS No. 3955 of 2015, wherein he would submit that, the order of suspension as well as the article of charge has been issued by the incompetent authority without 3 having jurisdiction and also without proper approval of Kuladhipati it is also pleaded that, the power is vested with the Executive Council of the University and thus, the Article of Charge was not issued by the competent authority, therefore liable to be quashed. The present appellant/ respondents while filing the reply would submit that, the Registrar has been conferred with the power by Statute No. 8 of the Act, 1956 and further submitted that, the Registrar is the custodian of the records, he may issue all notices, convene meetings, conduct all correspondence relating to the University and may perform all other duties as may from time to time be prescribed to him by the Karyakarini Samiti. It was further replied that, the Article of Charge issued by the Registrar is strictly in accordance with the provisions of 3 the Statute. The writ petitioner was a contractual employee and according to Statute No. 21(11) of the Act, 1956, the issue can be raised before the Arbitrator, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court directly, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 09.09.2024 disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner after hearing the parties, and held that, the disciplinary action against the Professor and HOD can be taken by the Administrative Committee according to Section 23 of the Act, 1956 and thus, the Registrar has had no authority of law to issue an Article of Charge to the Professor and HOD and as thus the order of Article of Charge against the petitioner dated 12.10.2015 is hereby quashed and university 4 would be at liberty to issue the Article of Charge strictly in accordance with the law. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench is arbitrary, illegal therefore liable to be set-aside. The suspension of an officer- bearer is not a punishment nor was the conclusion of proceedings rather it is only initiation of a disciplinary proceedings, issuance of prior show cause notice is not at all necessary and the provision cannot be declared unconstitutional. The employer having jurisdiction to issue the suspension order against the delinquent may deem fit to pass, if any allegation made during service tenure. The writ petitioner misbehaved with his Kul Sachiv at the time of election of Student Union, the Article of Charge has been issued which is approved by the committee and it is issued in light of the CG Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1965. As per the covering me memo dated 07.01/2021 filed by the present appellant in which the proceeding of departmental enquiry has been filed which apparent that, the proceeding of departmental enquiry has been initiated in compliance of executive, therefore the disciplinary proceeding or Article of charge which has been approved by the disciplinary committee which has been overlooked by the learned Single Bench. Further, the seriousness of the allegation leveled against the writ petitioner, the Department thought of initiating disciplinary proceedings and for which a charge-sheet was issued on 12.10.2015 and after issuance of the 5 charge-sheet invoking the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 9 of Rules of 1966. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner observing that a bare reading of Statute No. 8 would show that the Registrar may perform administrative works, whereas, with regard to disciplinary authority, he has been conferred with the power to appoint, suspend, dismiss or otherwise punish the clerical and the menial Staff of the University office and such action shall be reported to the Karyakarini Samiti. The disciplinary action against the Professor and HOD can be taken by the Administrative Committee according to Section 23 of the Act, 1956 and thus, the Registrar has had no authority of law to issue an Article of Charge to the Professor and HOD. Further, taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the Article of Charge issued by the Registrar against the writ petitioner dated 12.10.2015 was quashed. The University was directed to issue the Article of Charge strictly in accordance with the law. The learned Single Judge lastly held that with regard to consequential benefits and arrears of salary, the writ petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the University strictly in 6 accordance with law and the University was directed to consider and decide the representation in an objective manner by speaking order preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet