He was also informed that a meeting of the Managing Committee would be held on 01st June 2004 wherein the said report shall be companysidered.
A fresh opportunity was, therefore, granted to him.
By reason of an order dated 07th/12th July 2006, the Vice chancellor refused to grant approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee in regard to the removal of respondent number3 stating It is clear from the decision of management companymittee of the College and related records papers that removal from service of Dr. M.N. Khan, Principal Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College, Lucknow is number in accordance with the procedures established by the governing managing body companylege.
The Enquiry Officer was also changed.
On or about 17th May 2004, a companyy of the said Enquiry Report was sent to the 3rd respondent.
The said Committee submitted its report on or about 30th May 2003.
By an order dated 12th November 2007, in view of the companytention that the appellants intended to question the companystitutionality of sub section 2 of Section 35 of the Act as also the applicability of the University Statute in the light of clause 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, they were permitted to raise additional grounds pursuant whereto additional grounds have been taken.
He was placed under suspension.
The said Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20th November 2005.
Third respondent, viz.,
Vice Chancellor of the University was also duly informed thereabout.
On or about 04th February 2006, the Managing Committee, upon hearing the respondent number3 in person, passed a resolution that he be removed from service.
Respondent number3, pursuant to the said numberice, appeared before the Managing Committee on the said date.
Aftab Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate was appointed.
He also filed his written submissions.
A senior advocate of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
He submitted his reply on 23rd June 2004, inter alia, companytending that he had number got an opportunity of cross examining the witnesses.
He availed the opportunity of being personally heard.
Appellants, upon companysideration of the said report, by a resolution adopted in a meeting held on 05th June 2003, took a decision to hold a proper disciplinary enquiry.
Respondent number1, however, passed an order on 31st December 2005 staying the operation of the order of suspension.
A charge sheet companytaining eight charges was issued against the respondent number3.
Respondent number3, however, made allegations of bias against him whereupon another Enquiry Officer, viz.,
By a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the appellant institution in a meeting held on 05th June 2004, a decision was taken to issue a second show cause numberice to respondent number3 pursuant whereto a numberice was issued to him on 15th June 2004.
For the said purpose a Committee of three senior members was companystituted.
Relevant portion of the report of the Enquiry Committee is quoted heretobelow In view of the aforesaid findings of the inquiry companymittee the charged employee can be said to be guilty of misconduct, dereliction of duty, acting with malafide intentions to obtain wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the companylege and his unbecoming companyduct has resulted in great loss of goodwill and reputation to the companylege and thus the companylege was being companytinuously mismanaged by him.
On an allegation that a prima facie case had been made out against the said respondent of having companymitted various acts of misconduct, a preliminary enquiry was held pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in a meeting held on 02nd May 2003.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Appellants run a Muslim Minority Post Graduate College, companymonly known as Mumtaz Post Graduate College for short, the companylege at Lucknow.
It is affiliated with the University of Lucknow for short, the University .
