HNLU VC Cannot Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against Employees Without Delegation Of Power By EC: Chhattisgarh High Court

"Neither the VC nor the Registrar was competent Authority to contemplate disciplinary proceedings as per the provisions of the Hidayatullah National University of Law Chhattisgarh Adhiniyam, 2003," it was argued.

The court was further told Section 10 defines the Authorities of the University but the VC or the Registrar do not find place as an Authority. "Section 12 defines the Executive Council, which would be the highest body of the University; therefore, the EC would be responsible for administration, management and control of the University," it was further argued.

The appointments of the appellants were made by the EC and the latter can delegate power to the VC or to a Committee but same was not done in the case, advocate Shashank Thakur argued.

"Charge sheets were issued to the appellants starting with the opening words 'the competent Authority proposes to hold an inquiry' and the 'Competent Authority' is defined under Regulation 2(6) of Chapter I of the Hidayatullah National Law University Staff Regulations, 2015, which only defines the EC, therefore, the Authority having power can only pass the order, which is absent here," he told the court.

The counsel for HNLU argued that with the representations, the appellants annexed hefty number of documents, which were confidential & sensitive in nature, but source of it was not disclosed by them.

"Section 5 (xii) would show that one of the criteria is to regulate and enforce discipline among the employees and as per Statute 19(7) the VC has been given the power to ensure that the provisions of the Act and the Regulations are duly observed, therefore, the object of Statute 19(7) read with Section 5(xii) is to enforce discipline in the University, which empowers the VC to take any disciplinary action against its employees," advocate Amrito Das argued.

The University also argued that Statute 19(7)(c) purports that the VC has all powers relating to the proper maintenance of discipline in the University, therefore, the power under the provision is distinct and independent.

As per the Regulation 37, the HNLU counsel submitted, the EC would be the appellate authority against any finding of the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the proposition that EC alone was authorised to take such disciplinary measure would be a wrong.

Findings

The court in the order dated September 27 said the EC has the power to appoint different management & administrative staff as well teaching staff, and may also delegate such functions to the VC according to the Regulations. 

"Statute 13 purport about delegation of powers by EC. It provides that the EC may by resolution, delegate to the VC or to a Committee, such of its powers as it may deem fit, subject to the condition that the action taken by the VC of such Committee in the exercise of the powers so delegated shall be reported at the next meeting of the EC," it added.

However, the court said it is not in dispute that in the present case no power was delegated to the VC by the EC.

"Bare perusal of Statute 19(6) shows that the VC shall be the Chief Executive and Academic Head of the University and subject to the specific and general directions of the EC, meaning thereby the power of VC would be as per the directions and instructions issued by the EC," it added. 

The court further noted that Section 5 of the Act speaks about powers and functions of the 'university' and Section 5 (xii) prescribes criteria to regulate and enforce discipline among the employees of the University and to take such disciplinary measures as may be deemed necessary.

It added that Section 5(xli) further gives powers and functions on delegation of powers to the VC or others. 

"Section 5 of the Act, 2003 defined the 'powers and functions of the University' and VC is not included in it. So the VC is required to follow the Act of 2003 and the University cannot be synonym to VC as they are distinctly been shown in the Act," it said in the judgement.

The court also said that 'competent authority' under the Regulations in relation to exercise of any power, means the Executive Council or any authority to which the power is delegated by or under these Regulations.

"In the case in hand, there is no delegation of power to the VC to conduct departmental enquiry against the appellants. When the appointment of the appellants was made as per Statute 9(2) by EC it would be the EC at first hand to proceed with any disciplinary proceedings. The competent authority as per Regulation denotes that it is the EC. In absence of any delegation of power to the VC, he could not have contemplated the disciplinary proceedings in the name of the competent authority, which never existed and usurpt such power."

The argument made by the HNLU counsel that EC is appellate authority against VC was rejected by the Court. 

"Simply because EC is appellate authority there cannot be implied vesting of power to VC to initiate departmental enquiry against the appellants can be presumed,." Court said.

In these terms, the appeal was allowed and the chargesheets were quashed. The single bench had earlier ruled in favour of HNLU.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v Hidayatullah National Law University & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 72