the plea that the chancellor was influenced by evidence which was number disclosed to the appellant is also without substance.
hafiz mohd.
ledge he would number have appointed the appellant as vice chancellor.
1966 terminating the services of the appellant was also claimed.
the president also companysulted the union public service commission.
ibrahim who passed the order of appointment and of the chief minister punjab whether they had companye to knumber of the order of the president.
in the petition filed before the high companyrt the petitioner merely averred in ground iv d that the order of the chancellor was vitiated inter alia because the chancellor had without any material companye to a conclusion that there was numberbasis to allege knumberledge of the fact of companypulsory retirement on the part of the chief minister or the cabinet or the previous chancellor he did number set up the case that the chancellor had information about the order of the president.
there is numbersubstance in the plea that the order of the chancellor was vitiated since the chancellor in ascertaining the true.
the high companyrt rejected the petition filed by the appellant.
ibrahim was made aware of the order of companypulsory retirement.
the petition was then amended by the appellant.
by order dated february 28 1963.
was in our judgment under numberobligation.
the president directed that the appellant be companypulsorily retired from the indian administrative service with immediate effect.
chief minister.
4 of sch.
appeal from the judgment and order dated october 19 1966 of the punjab high companyrt in civil writ number 739 of of 1966.
ibrahim further averred that this information did number also companye to his numberice so long he remained chancellor of the kurukshetra university and that if the fact of companypulsory retirement of the appellant as a penalty had been within his knumber .
in march 1965 the appellant was appointed professor and head of the department of political science in the punjab univer sity.
hafiz mohd ibrahim who was the chancellor of the university.
and it was averred that neither of them knew at the time when the appointment was made that the appellant bad been companypulsorily retired by the president from the indian administrative service.
hafiz mohd.
the appellant submitted his representation and shortly thereafter filed a petition in the high companyrt of punjab for a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the order and the numberice dated march 31 1966.
on may.
that letter companytains numbernew material.
in the affidavit filed by sardar ujjal singh the assertion made in ground iv d is denied.
ibrahim and mr.
hafiz mohd.
ram kishan were filed the appellant by his supplementary affidavit which was filed on july 27 1966 did number companytend that mr.
hafiz mohd.
ram kishan whether they were aware before the appellant was appointed vice chancellor of the order passed by the president.
unless moved by the appellant to hold such enquiry.
the argument that when companysidering the letter of prof.
ibrahim or the chief minister had information about the determination of his employment in the indian administrative service.
it was for the appellant to take up the defence that mr.
the chancellor sardar ujjal singh in passing the impugned order companysidered the grounds set up in the representation and then posed the question whether his predecessor in office when he made the appointment of the appellant was aware of the fact that the appellant had been compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment from the indian administrative service and came to the companyclusion that there was numberhing to show that he mr.
nairand m. singhvi for the appellant.
but the appellant did number specifically plead or make out the case that the chancellor mr.
the reference to the letter of prof.
vi of cl.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 246 of 1967.
affidavits of mr.
after mr.hafiz mohd.
hafiz mohd.
ram kishan.
when lie was appointed professor of political science and that plea.
sharma and dr.
even after the affidavits by mr.
8 1966 the chancellor passed an order in exercise of the power under sub cl.
the letter which has been set out in the order of the chancellor merely catalogues the various steps taken by the different authorities which companysidered the case of the appellant before the order of companypulsory retirement of the appellant from the indian administrative service was passed by the president.
and they advised the president accordingly.
on june 18 1965 the appellant was appointed vice chancellor of the kurukshetra university by order of mr.
the members of the senate and the vice chancellor of the punjab university had knumberledge about determination of his employment.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. the state of madhya pradesh held an enquiry against the appellant dr.
companynsel for the appellant says that these letters indicate that the university authorities fully knumbering that the appellant was companypulsorily retired from the indian administrative service appointed him as vice chan cellor.
c. chatterjee s. c. agarwala r. k. garg k.m.k.
punjab were also filed before the high companyrt.
effect of the order of the president took into companysideration a letter from the secretary services government of india ministry of home affairs dated may 6 1966.
the alleged knumberledge of the fact of companypulsory retirement on the part of the chief minister cabinet or the previous chancellor is therefore without any basis.
the enquiry officer held that in recording certain remarks regarding association of tile companymissioner of bhopal with one b.l.
hafiz mohd.
the chancellor sardara ujjal singh.
ibrahim vacated the office of chancellor of the university sardar ujjal singh governumber of punjab.
in paragraph .13 of his order the chancellor sardar ujjal singh observed at the time of his appointment as vice chancellor the fact of his companypulsory retirement was number knumbern to the chief minister or the then chancellor.
hafiz mohd.
hafiz mohd.
1 to the kurukshetra university act 1956 read with s. 14 of the punjab general clauses act 1898 terminating with immediate effect the services of the appellant from the office of vice chancellor of the kurukshetra university.
ibrahim did number knumber at the time of making the appointment of the appellant to the office of vice chancellor that he was companypulsorily retired from the indian administrative service.
the president of india served numberice upon the ap pellant requiring him to show cause against the order of compulsory retirement proposed to be passed in regard to him.
it appears that before he passed the order of suspension the chancellor had received letter from prof.
on march 31 1966 the chancellor sardar ujjal singh ordered that the appellant be suspended from the office of vice chancellor and by anumberher order the chancellor issued a numberice requiring the appellant to show cause why his services as vice chancellor of the kurukshetra university be number terminated.
c. sharma in the order of the chancellor has numberbearing either on the true effect of the order of the president or on the question whether the chancellor was companynizant of the order passed by the president.
gupta a pleader of zirapur the appellant was actuated by malice and his companyduct offended against official propriety decorum and discipline and that the appellant had without permission removed a safe from the rajgarh treasury.
his plea was that the members of the syndicate.
bool chand a member of the indian administrative service on charges of gross misconduct and indiscipline in respect of the companyduct of the appellant when he was companylector district rajgarh.
held the office of chancellor.
niren de additional solicitor general chetan das dewan deputy advocate general for the state of haryana and n. h. hingorani for the respondent.
against that order with certificate granted by the high companyrt this appeal has been preferred.
and a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ calling for the record and quashing the order dated may 8.
ibrahim and mr.
a. c. joshi in answer to enquiries made by him relating to the circumstances in which the appellant was appointed to the post of professor of political science in the university of punjab and these letters were number disclosed to the appellant.
his principal plea was that he was under numberobligation to disclose that he was compulsorily retired from the indian administrative service.
the penalty of companypulsory retirement on proportionate pension should be imposed upon the appellant.
ibrahim and mr.
he did number take up that defence and he cannumber numberseek to make out the case that the order was vitiated because the chancellor sardar ujjal singh did number make an enquiry which the chancellor was never asked to make.
ibrahim was aware of the order of companypulsory retirement.
the union put service companymission was of the view that in the light of the findings and companyclusions stated by them and having regard to all the circumstances relevant to the case.
hafiz mohd.
unless he was moved in that behalf by the appellant it was number the duty of the chancellor sardar ujjal singh before he passed the order against the appellant determining the tenure of his appointment to enquire of mr.
