NORTH BENGAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. versus DILIP KUMAR SARKAR

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 192 · Decided: 24-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 192 
NORTH BENGAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. 
v. 
DILIP KUMAR SARKAR 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5702-5703 of 2015) 
JULY24, 2015. 
[T. 5. THAKUR, R. K. AGRAWAL AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
c 
North Bengal University Act, 1981 - s. 10(6) - Controller 
of Examination of University responsible for irregularities in 
University fund- Issuance of suspension order - Writ petition 
challenging suspension - Suspension order quashed by 
High Court since the Vice-Chancellor did not apply its mind 
D as to whether emergent situation arose for invocation of s. 
10(6) - Issuance of direction to the University to permit the 
Controller to resume his duty - Said order disposed of by 
the Division Bench - On appeal, held: High Court was wrong 
on both the counts - Question that fell for determination 
E before the Single Judge was whether the order of suspension 
issued by the Vice-Chancellor was legally valid - In appeal, 
the question that fell for consideration was whether the Single 
Judge was right in holding that the Vice-Chancellor's order 
was bad for the reason indicated by Single Judge - Division 
F Bench did not advert to that question at all, instead opined 
that the appeal had become infructuous and was academic 
- Matter was not infructuous or academic - Further, the 
Division Bench made arrangement in substitution of the order 
G of Single Judge, issued conditional and contingent directions 
for the Chancellor, the Executive Council and the Vice-
Chancellor of the University to follow - Division Bench 
appears to be making an interim arrangement subject to the 
final outcome of the writ petition which was heard by Single 
H Judge - High Court overlooked the fact that the order under 
192 
NORTH BENGAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR 
193 
SARKAR 
challenge was a final order by Single Judge - Order betrays A 
the ignorance of the Division Bench about the true factual 
position of the case - Order of the Division Bench is tOtal/y 
dissatisfactory - Failure of the Division Bench to adopt a 
judicial approach in the matter is much too evident to be 
ignored, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings apart from B 
delay and failure of justice - Matter remitted back to High 
Court - Judicial deprecation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
5702-5703 of 2015 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2011 of the 
High Court of Calcutta in AST No. 182 of2011 with C.O.T. No. 
14of2011 
D 
Krishnan Venugopal, Kuna! Chatterji, Maitrayee Banerjee 
for the Appellants. 
Ranjan Mukherjee, A.K. Roy and Snehasjsh Mukherjee 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. 
Leave granted. 
E 
2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 25th August, 
2011, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta 
F 
whereby AST 182 of 2011 and COT 14 of 2011 filed by the 
appellant-University have been disposed of with certain 
directions. 
3. The factual matrix in which the disputes touching the G 
validity of certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 
respondent arose has been elaborately set out in the order 
passed by the Single Judge of the High Court and that passed 
by the Division Bench in appeal. Recapitulation of the entire H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A factual backdrop would, therefore be of little use. All that we 
need mention is that the respondent-Dilip Kumar Sarkar was 
working as Controller of Examinations, University of North 
Bengal. A special audit/investigation into certain irregularities 
appears to have been conducted and a report drawn-up which 
B suggested that the respondent was responsible for the said 
irregularities involving huge amounts spent out of the University 
fund. The report quantified the financial loss caused to the 
University at a sum of Rs.1,04,44,716/-. 
C 
4. In February, 2009 the University appears to have 
engaged the services of M/s. Mitra Roy & Datta, Chartered 
Accountants, to undertake a fact finding exercise into the 
irregularities afore-mentioned. The report submitted by the 
said Chartered Accountants also suggested that irregularities 
D had, indeed, been committed and that the University had 
suffered a financial loss. The loss was pegged at 
Rs.81,58,059/- by the auditors apart from several other 
irregularities refE'.rred to in their report. 
E 
5. In August, 2009 the Executive Council of the appellant-
University appears to have appointed Mr. Arun Kumar Das, 
ICAS (Retired) to investigate, in

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