J. K. Chaudhuri v. R.K. Datta Gupta & Others

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 321 of 1957. . . .April 7. ] . I<. Chaudhuri [1959) Appeal by special leave from order elated June 13, 1956, of the in Civil Rule No. 80 of 1955. the judgment and Assam High Court R. K. Datta Gupta Rarudeb Chaudhury and D. N. Mukherjee, for the '"' Others appellant. Kapu• j. N. C. Chatterjee and Naunit Lal, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. N aunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. 1958. April 7. The following Judgment of the Conrt 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 College, Silchar (which will be referred to in this judgment afl the College) against a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature in Assam dated June 13, 1956, dismissing the appellant's petition under Art. 226.

It raised the question as to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Executive Council of the University of Gauhati in regard to disciplinary action taken by the Governing Body of the College against its Princi. pal, R. K. Datta Gupta, respondent No. 1. In 1937, respondent No. 1 was appointed Professor of Mathematics in the college. He was appointed Vice-Principal in 1947 and Principal in 1950. Due to certain representations made to the Governing Body against respondent No. 1, a committee was appointed by the Governing Body to enquire into the allegations. This committee held several sittings and made a report after considering 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. This he failed to do but later on submitted an explanation which was duly considered. As fresh material was disclosed after the suspension, respondent No. 1 was called upon to give a further explanation.

He then requested for the previous charges being decided before enquirj' into fresh charges was made. The Governing Body held a meeting on November 1, 1953, and after considering SUP<REME COURT REPORTS the matter found him guilty of moral turpitude and I958 dishonesty and also gross negligence of duty, ineffici- J. J<. Chaudhuri ency and insubordination and ordered his dismissal as Principal and Professor of Mathematics .of the college. R. K Datta Gupta On November 30, 1953, respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 282 of 1953, in the Court of Munsif Sadar, Silchar, challenging the legality of the proceed- 'Kapur J. i1igs of the committee appointed by the Governing Body and of the proceedings and decision taken by it ;:i,nd prayed for an injunction restraining the ~overning Body from appointing another Principal. He also applied for a temporary injunction. This suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge U. A. D., at Silchar and was renumbered as Title Suit No. 10of1954 which has not yet been decided.

On N ovi:mbe:r 11, 1953, respondent No. 1 made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University against his· dismissal and prayed that the Governing Body be directed not to fill up the post'of Principal pending the disposal of his ·appeal which was filed on November 30, 1953, arid which was a reiteration of the allegations made by him in the plaint in the suit in the Court of Munsif Sadar. The Executive Council of the University, i. e., respondent No. 2 thereupon appointed under para. 3(h) of the Statutes framed under s. 2l(g) of the Gauhati University Act (Assam XVI of 1947) (hereinafter called ' the Act) a committee, respondent No. 3, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Director of Public Instruction and the Legal Remembrancer of the State of Assam to report on the . propriety of the action taken. Aft'3r considering the matter and giving full opportunity to. both sides respond~nt No. 3 on March 30, 1955, made a report to respondent No. 2 that:

"there was no reasonable ground justifying the dismissal of Shri R. K. Datta Gupta from the post of the Principal, Guru Charan College Silchar." · On April 20, 1955, this report was accepted by respondent No. 2 and it passed the following resolution: 11 .................. Resolved that the findings of the Committee be accepted and in view of the facts that Sri R. K. Datta Gupta 'Yas · not di~missed on a.ny SUP.REME COURT REPORTS [1959) z95B reasonable grounds, the Governing Body be directed J. J<. Chaudhw'i to reinstate him before 31st July, 1955." Against this order the Governing Body of the college R. I<. Datta Gupta filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of & Othm Assam but the petition was dismissed on June 13, ](apur ]. 1956. Although in the High Court the appellant challenged the power of the University to interfere with the decision of the Governing Body, of the college removing respondent No. 1 both from Principalship and from Professorship of Mathematics, in this Court the arguments were confined to the former only.

The two categories, it was submitted, were distinct and were dealt with in the Act and the Statute made thereunder separately. The Principal was merely the administrative head of the College and a teacher 1;olely engaged in imparting instructions. The Act therefore contemplates their discharging different functions. To support this contention, various provisions of the Act and the Statutes made under the Act were referred to. The words " Principal" and " Teacher" are defined in s. 2 of the Act : " 2 (h) ' Principal ' means the head of a College, arid includes where there is no Principal, the person for the time being duly appointed to act as Principal, and, in the absence of the Principal, a Vice-Principal duly appointed as such . 2 (k) ' Teacher' includes Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other persons imparting instructions in the University or in any College or Ha.ll ''.

The distinction finds further support from other provisions of the Act which maintain a clear distinction between a ' Principal ' and a ' Teacher '. Section 9 of the Act dools with the constitution of the Court which has three classes of members: Ex-Officio members, Life Members and Other Members. Principals fall under class I and are mentioned in sub-s. (vii). Teachers come under the heading 'Other Members ' enumerated in class III. In sub-s. (xiv) representation is given to ' Teachers' elected from their own body who are not Pr?fossors or ~eaders of the University . S.C.R. Similarly in .the constitUtion of the Executive Council I958 contained in s. 12, a distinction is maintained be- 1 ffi · ]. !(. Chaudhuri tween nnmpa s w o are in c ass , i. e., x-o cw members and Professors of the University who are in R. K Da:ia Gupta class II, i. e., ·other members~· Amongst the former have to be included two Principals of recognised colleges elected from their own body and in Class II Kapur J. r~presentation is given to Professors of the University and none to the teachers.

Therefore wherever the provisions of the Act inen.tion .the word a 'Principal' or a ' Teacher ' two distinct entities are indicated and one is not to be included in tJhe other. The Statutes made under s. 2l(g) of the Act also maintain this distinction in their various clauses and where the word 'principal' occurs it is used in its distiQctive and restrictive sense and where the word ' teacher ' or the phrase ' mejllber of the teaching staff ', or any other similar word or phrase is used the reference is · to a teacher and not to a principal.' Clause 1 Of the Statute requires the existence of a Governing Body for each college not maintained by the University.

Clause 2 (a) gives its constitution which includes the Principal and the Vice-Principal as ex-officio members and so also two representatives of the teaching staff to be elected annually showing that a Principal as such is distinct from a member of the teaching staff which must necessarily mean employees of colleges engaged in the teaching of various subjects. Clause 2 (c) nominates the Principal as the Secretary of the Governing Body. Sub-els. (a), (b), (c) and (d) of cl. 3 deal with a teacher's appointment, pay, scales of pay, probation and period of appointment. Sub-cl. (e) deals with increments. It provides: "An increment according to the pay scale will be drawn as a matter of course ................. ~ ... The incr:ement may be withheld on the gr9und of .unsatisfactory work of an employee ..................... "

The word 'employee' here must necessarily refer to a teacher because it provides for increments according to pa~ scales and the withholding of increments for unsatisfactory work of an employee dealt with in the first four sub-cl~uses which in terms apply to a teacher. [1959) I958 Sub-cl. (f) deals with the period of service. Sub-els (i) K Cl di . . and (ii) are as follows : · v'."" "'" "(i) The ~ervices of a permanent employee shall R. K. Datta cupta not be determmed except on reasonable grounds. (ii) The services of a permanent employee shall not be terminated in the course of an academic session Kapur J. except on very special grounds, such as moral turpitude, proved incapacity and inefficiency. If the Governing Body of a college considers it advisable that the services of a· permanent employee should be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in clause (g) (ii), the matter shall be forthwith reported to the Executive Council".

The use of the phrase 'academic session' indicates that the 'Permanent employee' must be a person connected with teaching for otherwise it lacks meaning. • The language c:f sub-cl. (g) (iii) which is as follows: " A teacher whose services are dispensed with on grounds other than those mentioned in clause (g) (ii) shall be paid compensation equal to as many months' pay as the number of completed years of his service, subject to a maximum of twelve months' pay" further supports this interpretation that a 'permanent employee' mentioned in sub-cl. (g) (ii) refers to a teacher and to no one else. This is further strengthened by the use of the word 'teacher' in sub-cl. (g) (iv) which provides for the procedure for an enquiry where a teacher has to be dismissed, suspended or reduced in pay. Sub-cl. (g) (v) reserves to the Executive Council of the-University the power to enquire into causes of dismissal of a teacher whether on its own motion or on an appeal by the teacher. Sub-cl.

(h) which is in the following words : " All cases of dismissal, suspension, or any other serious grievai1ce of the teaching staff will be considered by a Committee of the following members" uses the words " teaching staff " and this again shows that the reference is to the teacher and not to a Principal because cl. 3 taken as a whole clearly tleals with the conditions of service of a teacher, compensation to be paid to him and the procedure to be followed S.C.R. in cases of disciplinary action taken against him. These r958 words cannot in the context in which they appear in the Statutes or in the context of the language of the J. [(. Choudh,.ri Act itself _have refe~·ence to .anybody other than a R. J(. n:;ta r.upta member of. the teachmg staff, I. e., teacher. It shows o;, Othm therefore that in cl. 3 of the Statute where the expression used ii'!

"permanent employee" or the "teacher" '"1P11r J. or"' teaching staff" the reference is to members of the college who are teachers as si1Ch and it has no application to any other employee of the college such as a Principal. Deka J. was of the opinion that as respondent Xo. 1 held two capacities-that of the Principal and membership of the teaching staff, resp~mdent No. 2 could order his restoration to both the offices because the t";o capacities could not be separated. As shown above the two capacities are distinct with separate functions and have been separa.tely dealt with in the Act and the Statutes under the Act and the learned judge was in error in holding otherwise. Sarjoo Parshad C. J. gave to the phrase 'permanent employee' usf'd in the Statutes an extended meaning so as to include a Principal as well as a college teacher. This again is an interpretation which is contrary to the interpretation which stems from the analysis we have given above and is therefore erroneous.

Relying on sub-cl. 3(h) of the Statutes counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that as respondent No. 1 was also a member of the teaching .staff being a ProfessQr of Mathematics his case fell within the words " or any other serious grievance of the teaching staff". These words refer to grievances which a member of the teaching staff may have in his capacity of a teacher and not in any other capacity and these words cannot be extended to include the grievances of 11' teacher in connection with something which is dehors the words of the clause and would not therefore include his grievances which he may have if he is also the Principal. As has been pointed out above the relevant provisions of the Act and of the Statutes made under SUPR'.EME COtJRT '.REPORTS [1959] s. 2l(g) of the Act show the separate capacities of the Princi1)al and the Teacher. The J. urisdiction of res- J. J(, .Chaudhuri pondent No. 2 to interfere with the action taken by R. K. Datta Gupta the Governing Body arises only in the case of a teacher & Othus and would not extend to a case where the same person I\.apitr ]. holds these two offices, as there is no provision in the Act or the Statutes giving the University such power to interfere.

Consequently so far as Respondent No'. 2 interfered with the action · tal}en by the Governing Body against respondent No. 1 in his capacity, as the Principal of the college it acted without jurisdiction and therefore that part of the order of respondent No. 2 and the judgment of the High Court to that extent cannot be sustained and must be set aside as respondent No. 2 there acted in excess of jurisdiction. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, modify the order of the High Court and hold that the order of respondent No. 2 in regard to respondent No. 1 qua his office as Principal was without jurisdiction and the order of re-instatement of respondent No. 1 by the University to the post of Principal must be set aside.

As the special leave was directed against the judgment of the High Court both in regard to the office of Principal and the office of teacher of the college and it was at the stage of arguments that the case was confined to the 'Principal ' of the college, the proper order for costs should be that the parties do bear their own costs in this Court as well as in the High Court. Appeal allowed . I ...