LAL BAHADUR GAUTAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 08-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
LAL BAHADUR GAUTAM
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4794 of 2019)
MAY 08, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
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 non-
speaking 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repealed Act (statute) – Held: Reliance on the judgment based on
repealed Act is akin to relying on an overruled judgment – Even if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
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 389
389
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
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, non-
speaking 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
391
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 Vice-
Chancellor.  [Para 15] [399-A-B]
2.1 Notwithstanding the easy access to information
technology for research today, as compared to the plethora of
legal D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.