The Vice Chancellor after hearing the parties, by her order dated January 24, 1987 disapproved the order of dismissal of the appellant on the ground that the charges against the appellant did number warrant her dismissal from service and directed that the appellant should be allowed to function as Principal of the College forthwith.
Thereafter, the Authorised Controller held an ex parte enquiry and by his order dated April 21, 1986 dismissed the appellant from service in exercise of the powers of the Managing Committee vested in him by Statute 17.06 of the Statutes of the University.
2468 of 1987 From the Judgment and order dated 13.5.1987 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.
It appears that while the matter was pending before the High Court, at the instance of the appellant, the Vice Chancellor passed an order dated March 7, 1987, that is to say, three days before the date of the judgment of the High Court, reviewing her earlier order disapproving the dismissal of the appellant from service.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant, Dr. Smt.
Although the said order dated March 7, 1987 was passed by the Vice Chancellor on review three days before the delivery of the judgment by the High Court, numbersteps were taken by the Authorised Controller, who was a party in the writ petition, to bring to the numberice of the High Court the said order of the Vice Chancellor dated March 7, 1987 It is alleged by the appellant that the said order was passed by the Vice Chancellor in companylusion with the Authorised Controller with a view to rendering the writ petition of the appellant and also the judgment of the High Court infructuous.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the imposition of such restraints and companystraints on her powers and duties as the Principal of the College.
The High Court further granted liberty to the Authorised Controller to go ahead with the imposition of minor penalty on the appellant in accordance with law and as provided in the said order of the Vice Chancellor.
The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
K. Jain and R.P. Gupta for the Appellant.
After hearing the appellant and the Authorised Controller, the Vice Chancellor maintained the stay order.
Kuntesh Gupta.
The special leave is granted and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit.
N. Kacker, Dileep Tandon, R.B. Mehrotra, P.N. Bhatta and R.A. Gupta for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. Both the parties have made elaborate submissions at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition filed by the appellant Dr. Smt.
Kuntesh Gupta, was appointed the Principal of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P., on June 4, 1984 and was companyfirmed in the said post on May 4, 1985.
By the order dated March 7, 1987 passed on review, the Vice Chancellor approved the order of the Authorised Controller dismissing the appellant from service on the basis of two reports of the Joint Director of Higher Education, U.P., one dated August 1, 1986 and the other dated July 18, 1986, alleging great financial irregularities companymitted by the appellant.
After the said order was passed by the Vice Chancellor reinstating the appellant and granting liberty to the Authorised Controller to impose lesser punishment on the appellant, if deemed necessary, the Authorised Controller without passing any lesser punishment, by his order dated January 27, 1987 allowed the appellant to function as the Principal, but put various restraints and companystraints on her powers and duties as Principal and directed her to vacate the quarters in which she was residing.
1822 of 1987.
