INDRA BHAUN GAUR versus COMMITIEE, MANAGEMENT OF M.M. DEGREE COLLEGE AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 06-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

INDRA BHAUN GAUR 
v. 
COMMITIEE, MANAGEMENT OF M.M. DEGREE COLLEGE AND 
ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Charges of irregularity in the conduct of examination against principal-
Principal helping his son in the exam-Departmental proceedings-Grant of 
ample opportunity to the Principal for placing his case-Non-cooperation by 
A 
B 
c 
the Principal-Termination order-Challenge-Dismissal by High Court-
Appeal-Plea that non-payment of subsistence allowance and denial of 
opportunity vitiates proceedings, and also bias on part of Managing Committee D 
and the fact of Principal 's son being exonerated of the charges-Held: Despite 
repeated opportunities given Principal totally indifferent in extending 
cooperation-Unless prejudice shown, mere non-payment of subsistence 
allowance cannot ipso facto be ground to vitiate proceedings-8 out of I I 
members according approval to the proposed action of termination shows no- E 
bias-His son exonerated of charges as University not following principle of 
natural justice-Also there is allegation regarding admission of principal 's 
son illegally-Hence matter remitted back to High Court for fresh adjudi~ation. 
Appellant was appointed as Principal of the Respondent College. 
University examinations were held. Appellant committed irregularities in F 
conducting examination; he changed the answerbook of his son. 
Respondent-Managing Committee resolved to suspend the appellant and 
also hold an enquiry. Appellant was issued charge-sheet. All the documents 
which were demanded by the appellant were given. He did not appear 
before the enquiry Committee and the Committee found him guilty of G 
irregularity in the conduct of examination and recommended his dismissal 
subject to approval of the Vice-Chancellor. Thereafter, the Managing 
Committee resolved that the appellant's service be terminated instead of 
dismissal. Vice-Chancellor granted approval. Appellant challenged the 
order. It was rejected, as he had been given adequate opportunity to place 
H 
327 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200.3] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A his case before the Enquiry Committee but he failed to do so. Appellant 
challenged the order of Vice-Chancellor by filing a writ petition before 
High Court and it was dismissed. Application for review was also 
dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that during the period of suspension he was not 
B paid subsistence allowance; that the appellant's son had filed writ petition 
which was allowed and Vice-Chancellor had accepted the order of High 
Court, quashing the action taken against him and had directed declaration 
of his result; that there is complete absence of any substratum of the 
charge of alleged irregularities for taking any action against the appellant; 
C that several documents placed on record before the High Court established 
that there was bias on part of the Managing Committee; and that even 
two of the persons who were part of the Committee which took decision 
stated about the bias. 
Respondent-Managing Committee contended that in order to get 
D subsistence allowance the particular procedure was to be followed, which 
was not done by the appellant and subsister1•e allowance thereafter has 
been subsequently paid; that the action against appellant's son was set 
aside because of non-compliance with the requirements of principles of 
natural justice and not on account of any specific finding objectively 
E recorded; that the High Court had directed the authorities to proceed 
afresh after grant of opportunity, the University thought otherwise, and 
the Vice-Chancellor directed declaration of the result which per se does 
not take away the right to proceed against the appellant; that the order 
goes to show that 8 of the 11 members agreed for action against the 
F appellant in the manner done, there was no question of any bias; and that 
the appellant having failed to avail the adequate opportunity granted 
cannot make a grievance. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, there was total lack of cooperation 
from the appellant. It is only a person who is ready and willing to avail of 
opportunity given can make a grievance about denial of any opportunity 
and not a person like the appellant who despite repeated opportunities 
given and indulgence shown exhibited defiance and total indifference in 
H extending cooperation. Therefore, on that score the appellant ca

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.