VICE-CHANCELLOR, JAMMU UNIVERSITY & ANR. versus DUSHIANT KUMAR RAMPAL

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 23-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
VICE-CHANCELLOR, JAMMU UNIVERSITY & ANR. 
v. 
DUSHIANT KUMAR RAMPAL 
February 23, 1977 
43 
A 
[P. N. BHAGWAT!, A. C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ;J 
B 
I & K Universities Act, 1969-SS. 13(4), 51, 52 and statlllc 24(ii)-Scope 
of--Vice-Cliancellor-lf co111vete11t to suspend a 
teacher-Suspension-Effect 
of. 
· 
The Jammu and Kashmir University, \vhich was a university constiluted 
under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965, was bifurcated into two 
universities-one for Jammu area and the other fur K;.u;hmir area-by an act 
C 
called the Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act, 1969. Statute 2 made under 
the 1965-Act required every teacher to sign the prescribed agreement of service 
with the University. Clause (6) of the agree1nent stipulated that in all mat· 
ters the teacher would s.bide by the statutes and regulations in force in the 
university from time to time. The proviso to this clause provided that 
no 
change in the statutes and regulations in this regard shall be deemed to have 
adversely affected the teacher. 
Section 51 of the 1969-Act provides for continuing in force the statutes and 
n.:gulations inade under the 1965-Act; buts. 48(2) en1powered a special officer 
to propose modifications necessary to bring the statutes made under the 1965-
Act in conformit:Y with the provisions of the 1969-Act and if such modifications 
\Vere approved by the Chancellor they were deemed to have been made 
by 
the competent authority under the 1969-Act. Section 52(1) of the 1969-Act 
provides that a11 employees of the university employed under the 1965-Act shall 
continue in service on the same terms and conditions as regulated their service 
before the commencement of the 1969-Act. Sub-section (2)_ empowers the 
Chancellor to allocate employees of the univeNity (other than those serving 
on contract) between the two new universities and the allocation so made was 
deen1ed to be an appointment to the post under the 1969-Act. The proviso 
to this sub~section provides that in making such allocations the conditions of 
service of en1ployment of such employees shall not be varied to their disadvan-
tage. 
Sub-section ( 4) provides that all persons who \Vere employed under the 
former university on contract shall cease to hold such posts after 60 days from 
the commencement of the 1969-Act and all such contracts with the former 
university shall stand terminated on the expiry of 60 days. 
Section 13(4) of the 1969 Act empO\vers the Vice-Cl1ancellor to take such 
action as he deems necessary in any emergency which calls for immediate 
action. 
Section 13(6) provides that the Vice-Chancellor sha.U be responsible 
for the discipline of the University. Section 14(3) of the 1969-Act contained 
an identical provision as that contained ins .. 13(4) of the 1965-Act. 
To bring the statutes under the 1965-Act in conformity with the pro\isions 
of the 1969-Act modifications proposed by the special officer under s. 48(2) 
of the 1969-Act were approved by the Chancellor by his order dated Decem~ 
ber 24, 1969. This order substituted Chapter lV in the statutes by a 
new 
chapter. 
Acting under s. 52(4), the Chancellor made an order on December 24, 
1969 directing that certain teachers shaH continue on the respective posts in 
the new Universities on the terms and conditions embodied in Schedule 1( to 
the order. Clause 9(ii) of the Schedule empo\vercd the Vice-Chancellor to 
~uspend a teacher on grounds. among others of misconduct. 
111c respondent, a teacher appointed under the 1965-Act, was transferred 
to the Jammu area by the Chancellor's order dated December 24, 1969. In 
exercise of the power under cl. 9(ii) of Schedule II of the Chancellor's order 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
119771 3 S·C.R. 
and s. 13(4) of the 1969-Act, the Vice-Chancellor, by an order dated May 21, 
1970, suspended the respondent from service. By another order dated June 6, 
1970 the respondeni was allowed a subsistence allowance amounting to half 
his pay and half D.A. which was later raised to 75% of his pay and allowances. 
The respondent's writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging 
the suspension order of May 21, 1970, as well as the order dated June 6, 1970 
was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court. On appeal the Division 
Bench struck down the order of suspension as vioiative of s. 52(1) of 
the 
1969-Act. 
In appeal it was contended by the respondent that ( 1) since his case was 
governed by s.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.