Service Law:
Termination of service – Of a lecturer of a private unaided college, affiliated to an University created under a statute – Propriety of – Service of the appellant initially terminated by a nonspeaking order – Set aside by Vice Chancellor’s order dated 16.7.2016 being violative of s. 35(2) of Universities Act and granting liberty to the College to initiate departmental proceedings – College after initiating departmental proceedings passed fresh order of termination without prior approval as per s. 35(2) and Rule No.
16.06 of University Regulations – Writ petition challenging the termination was dismissed by High Court as not maintainable – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The college being affiliated to the University was bound by the provisions of the Act with its attendant consequences for non-compliance – As per section 35(2) of the Universities Act prior approval of the Vice Chancellor was mandatory before terminating the services of the appellant – The termination order being in the teeth of s. 35(2) is patently unsustainable – Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 – s. 35(2) – Chaudhary Charan Singh University Regulations – Rule No.
16.06. Judiciary:
Justice delivery system – Reliance on a judgment based on repealed Act (statute) – Held: Reliance on the judgment based on repealed Act is akin to relying on an overruled judgment – Even if such action is negligent, could be fatal by misleading the court leading to erroneous judgment – Such action would also result in waste of judicial time of the Court – Failure in that duty is a wrong against the justice delivery system – It is duty of the parties and their Counsel to double check and verify before making any presentation to Court – It is also for the Court to consider whether a particular presentation before the Court has occasioned unnecessary waste of court time.
Advocate/Advocates:
Role of Advocate – Held: As a responsible officer of the Court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice, a higher responsibility goes upon a lawyer representing an institution – He owes a duty to the Court as well as to opposite side – He cannot act as a mere mouthpiece of his client – He has to be fair to ensure that justice is done.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The order of the High Court is cryptic, nonspeaking and devoid of any consideration of the statutory provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The effect and consequences of the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 16.07.2016 has also not been considered. [Para 5] [383-G]
1.2 The college being affiliated to the University was bound by the provisions of the Act with its attendant consequences for non-compliance. The college having accepted the order of the Vice-Chancellor and acted upon the same by holding departmental proceedings cannot urge that it is bound by one part of the order and not the other. It cannot have the benefit of the order without complying with its obligations under the order. A bare reading of the statutory provision i.e. s. 35(2) of the Act makes it manifest that prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor was mandatory before termination of the appellant. If the management of the college opined otherwise, it ought to have challenged the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 16.07.2016, if such a challenge was maintainable. Having allowed the order to attain finality, it is not open for the college management to now urge that it was not bound to follow the procedure. The order of termination dated 24.04.2017 being in teeth of Section 35(2) of the Act is patently unsustainable. [Para 8] [394-F-H; 395-A]
1.3 The appellant is held entitled to reinstatement. The respondent management is not precluded from proceeding afresh in accordance with law from the stage of irregularity. In that eventuality the Vice-Chancellor shall consider any request for approval on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation in the present order. The question of back wages, if any, shall abide by any such decision of the ViceChancellor. [Para 15] [399-A-B]
2.1 Notwithstanding the easy access to information technology for research today, as compared to the plethora of legal Digests which had to be studied earlier, reliance was placed by the respondent Management upon a judgment based on an expressly repealed Act by the present Act, akin to relying on an overruled judgment. This has only resulted in a waste of judicial time of the Court, coupled with an onerous duty on the judges to do the necessary research. Though it may be negligence also, but the consequences could have been fatal by misleading the Court leading to an erroneous judgment. [Para 10] [395-F-H]
2.2 Simply, failure in that duty is a wrong against the justice delivery system in the country. Over the years, responsibility and care on this score has shown a decline. It is time that the Court takes note of the problem, and considers such steps to remedy the problem. It is duty of the parties and their Counsel, at all levels, to double check and verify before making any presentation to the Court. Time has come for these issues to be considered so that the citizen’s faith in the justice system is not lost. It is also for the Courts at all levels to consider whether a particular presentation by a party or conduct by a party has occasioned unnecessary waste of court time, and if that be so, pass appropriate orders in that regard. After all court time is to be utilized for justice delivery and in the adversarial system, is not a licence for waste. [Para 11] [396-A-C]
2.3 As a responsible officer of the Court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice, the lawyer undoubtedly owes a duty to the Court as well as to the opposite side. He has to be fair to ensure that justice is done. He demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client. A higher responsibility goes upon a lawyer representing an institution. [Paras 12 and 14] [396-D; 398-E]
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and others (1976) 2 SCC
58 : [1976] 2 SCR 1006 ; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 1 : [2016] 4 SCR 685 ; D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and others, (2001) 2 SCC 221 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 345 ; State of Rajasthan and another v. Surendra Mohnot and others, (2014) 14 SCC 77 : [2014] 6 SCR
191 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.