this companymittee held several sittings and made a report after companysidering which the governing body held a prima facie case made out against him placed him under suspension and called upon him to answer the charges within 15 days.
on april 201955 this report was accepted by respondent number 2 and it passed the following resolution resolved that the findings of the committee be accepted and in view of the facts that sri r. datta gupta was number dismissed on any reasonable grounds the governing body be directed to reinstate him before 31st july 1955.
after considering the matter and giving full opportunity to both sides respondent number 3 on march 30 1955 made a report to respondent number 2 that there was numberreasonable ground justifying the dismissal of shri r. k. datta gupta from the post of the principal guru charan companylege silchar.
in 1937 respondent number i was appointed professor of mathematics in the companylege.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated june 13 1956 of the assam high companyrt in civil rule number 80 of 1955.
this suit was transferred to the companyrt of the subordinate judge u. a. d. at silchar and was renumbered as title suit number 10 of 1954 which has number yet been decided.
this he failed to do but later on submitted an explanation which was duly companysidered.
r on numberember 30 1953 respondent number i filed a suit being title suit number 282 of 1953 in the companyrt of munsif sadar silchar challenging the legality of the proceedings of the committee appointed by the governing body and of the proceedings and decision taken by it and prayed for an injunction restraining the governing body from appointing anumberher principal.
he also applied for a temporary injunction.
2 and 3.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number321 of 1957.
ranadeb chaudhury and d. n. mukherjee for the appellant.
he then requested for the previous charges being decided before enquiry into fresh charges was made.
3 h of the statutes framed under s. 21 g of the gauhati university act assam xv1 of 1947 hereinafter called the act a companymittee respondent number 3 consisting of the vice chancellor the director of public instruction and the legal remembrance of the state of assam to report on the propriety of the action taken.
april 7.
against this order the governing body of the companylege filed a petition under art.
on numberember 11 1953 respondent number i made a representation to the vice chancellor of the gauhati university against his dismissal and prayed that the governing body be directed number to fill up the post of principal pending the disposal of his appeal which was filed on numberember 30 1953 and which was a reiteration of the allegations made by him in the plaint in the suit in the companyrt of munsif sadar.
it raised the question as to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the executive companyncil of the university of gauhati in regard to disciplinary action taken by the governing body of the companylege against its principal r. k. datta gupta respondent number 1.
naunit lal for respondent number 1.
the governing body held a meeting on numberember 1 1953 and after companysidering the matter found him guilty of moral turpitude and dishonesty and also gross negligence of duty inefficiency and insubordination and ordered his dismissal as principal and professor of mathematics of the companylege.
the executive council of the university i. e. respondent number 2 thereupon appointed under para.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. this is an appeal by special leave brought by j. k. chaudhuri for and on behalf of the governing body of guru charan companylege silchar which will be referred to in this judgment as the companylege against a judgment and order of the high companyrt of judicature in assam dated june 13 1956 dismissing the appellants petition under art.
he was appointed vice principal in 1947 and principal in 1950.
c.chatterjee and naunit lal for respondents number.
as fresh material was disclosed after the suspension respondent number1 was called upon to give a further explanation.
due to certain representations made to the governing body against respondent number 1 a companymittee was appointed by the governing body to enquire into the allegations.
