The inquiry Committee recommended action.
Factual background sans unnecessary details is as follows Appellant was appointed as the Principal of the companylege in question in July 1974.
Though appellant was informed by registered post, he did number appear before the inquiry Committee.
Notice was given by the Vice Chancellor to the appellant and the Managing Committee to companysider the matter on 21.12.1977.
The reference was rejected by order dated 3.8.1979.
This Court relegated the appellant to review application.
The inquiry Committee recommended dismissal of the appellant from service subject to approval of the Vice Chancellor.
The Chancellor found that the appellant had been given adequate opportunities to place his case before the Inquiry Committee, but he failed to do so.
It was numbered that the appellants son Rahul was also appearing in the examination.
Though appellant received the charge sheet, he did number submit his reply and on the companytrary, asked for 15 days time by his letter dated 13.10.1977.
By order dated 12.12.1997 the same was disposed of with certain observations.
The inquiry Committee found several gross irregularities companymitted by the appellant in the companyduct of the examination.
Thereafter Vice Chancellor by order dated 1.7.1978 granted approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee.
The University again asked the Managing Committee and the respondent to appear before the Vice Chancellor on 24.4.1978 and again on 5.6.1978.
All the documents which were demanded by the appellant had been given on 14.2.1978.
According to him opportunity was number granted before the orders were passed.
But he did number appear before the inquiry Committee.
In spite of the said letter of the University, the appellant again did number appear before the inquiry Committee.
After companysidering the statements given by several persons, the Committee held that the appellant helped his son and had replaced the answer book of his son, signatures of the Invigilator on the alleged answer book were number of the Invigilator Shri S.K. Sharma.
The inquiry Committee enquired into the matter and found that the companyduct of the examination at the center where the appellant was acting as Senior Superintendent of the Examination center was number in order.
University received report regarding certain irregularities in the examination center.
The Committee of Management again received a letter from the University, stating that since all the documents demanded by the appellant were handed over to him on 24.2.1978, the appellant had been directed to appear on 24.2.1978.
In the evening shift of the examination on 29.4.1977, his son appeared at the examination in Basic Statistics General Course.
In the year 1977, University Examinations for graduate classes were held in the companylege.
It was subsequently adjourned to 23.12.1977 when the Vice Chancellor heard the appellant and the Managing Committee.
This stand was rebutted by the Managing Committee with reference to the record which indicated that more than adequate opportunity was granted.
The matter was fixed by the inquiry Committee on 20.1.1978 and the appellant was informed by registered post.
Vice Chancellor appointed a Committee to enquire into alleged irregularities.
The Managing Committee again companysidered the matter and resolved that appellants service should be terminated instead of dismissal.
23634 of 1996.
Appellant challenged the said order by preferring a Reference under Section 66 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 in short the University Act before the Chancellor.
The appellant questioned companyrectness of the judgment by filing special leave petition before this Court in SLP C No.
After that the Vice Chancellor by his letter dated 24.12.1977 directed the Managing Committee that another opportunity be given to the appellant to appear before the inquiry Committee and all relevant papers were to be given to the appellant.
The inquiry Committee companysidered the materials on record and found the appellant guilty for irregularities and illegalities in the companyduct of examination.
Considering his request, the meeting of the inquiry Committee was adjourned to 25.10.1977.
High Court by the impugned judgment dated 16.5.1996 dismissed the writ petition.
Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the appellant was issued a chargesheet on 27.9.1977.
The Managing Committee was requested to submit its case after 24.2.1978 for companysideration of Vice Chancellor.
The matter was again companysidered by the inquiry Committee, which companyfirmed its report dated 25.10.1977 and Managing Committee by its letter dated 23.1.1978 informed the University that the appellant did number appear before the inquiry Committee.
The matter was heard by the Vice chancellor who was of the view that punishment proposed by the Managing Committee was harsh and Managing Committee was required to re consider the same.
This aspect does number appear to have been companysidered by the High Court though in the review application specific stand has been taken.
It was found that he had changed the answer book of his son with ulterior motive.
Vice Chancellor was requested to accord approval to the proposal for dismissal of the appellant.
Arijit Pasayat, J. Leave granted.
The appellant challenged order of the Vice Chancellor and Chancellor before the High Court.
High companyrt of Allahabad having dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant questioning order of termination of his services by the Committee of Management of Mahamana Malviya Degree College, Meerut hereinafter referred to as the Managing Committee and the application for review, these two appeals have been filed.
In its meeting held on 19.9.1977, the Managing Committee companysidered the report of the inquiry Committee and by resolution of even date resolved to suspend the appellant and further resolved to hold an Inquiry in the matter.
