LexJ. K. CHAUDHURI versus R.K. DATTA GUPTA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
<( ' • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS enactment .which was to bring· cbnstruction contracts x958 within the ambit of the tax;a.tion powers of the State, Mitha11 Lal and which failed only for want ·of legislative authority. v. Whether we view the notification as one extending aTJwState of Delhi subsisting statute to Delhi or as extending it with modifications so far as the impugned provisions are Venkatar!lma concerned, it is intra vires s. 2. · Aiyar J. • All the contentions urged by the petitioners having failed, the petitions are dismissed with costs . • . . . Petitions dismissed~ J. K. CHAUDHURI • ' v. ,. . H,, K. DATTA GUPT:k & OTlIERS' ' ' (BIIAGWATI, J. L. KAPUR and A. K, SARKAR JJ.) University of Gauhati, powers of-:-Principal dismissed by Governing Body of College~If University can interfere-'---Gauhati University Act (Ass. XV I of I947), ss. 2, 9, I2 and ZI, Statutes of the University, els. I, 2 and 3. ' · . · R was appointed Professor of Math'ematics in a College affili- ated to the Gauhati University. He was later appointed Princi- pal of the College. On complaints being made against R the Governing Body of the College held an enquiry artd or:dered his dismissal as Principal and Professor of Mathematics. R made representations to the Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University and the Executive Council of the University appointed a com- mittee to report on the propriety of the action taken. Upon the report of the committee that there was no reasonable gro1V1d justifying. the dismissal of R, the Executive Council passed ·a resolution directing the Governing Body to reinstate R : Held, that the Executive Council acted without jurisdiction in so far as it interfered with the action taken against R as the Principal of the College .. The Gauhati Universify Act, 1947, and the Statutes framed under s. 21(g) thereof made a qistinction between a Principal and a teacher. Clause 3(g)(v) ofthe Statutes empowered the Executive Couqcil to interfere only with the action taken by the Governing Body of an affiliated College against a teach~ a·nd not with action taken against a Principal. ,. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 321 of 1957. . . • .April 7. ] . I<. Chaudhuri v. 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [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 457 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.