Judgment:
ORDER
1. In this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court passed on 10th July, 2001, in WP (S) No. 2365 of 2001 (reported in 2001 (3) JCR 39 (Jhr)) is under challenge.
2. By this judgment, the learned single Judge has quashed and set-aside the notification, dated 12th June, 2000, issued by the Chancellor, Ranchi University, whereby he suspended the respondent; from the postof the Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University with effect from 5th June, 2000. The learned single Judge in the operative part of the judgment under appeal has accordingly held and directed that the order of suspension stands revoked with immediate effect and that, therefore, the respondent would stand reinstated on the post of Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University. We are informed at the Bar that in compliance with and on implementation of the said order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent actually resumed the charge of the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University on 11th July, 2001, and is continuing to occupy the post even at present.
3. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned Advocate-General appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 12th June, 2000, placing the respondent under suspension with effect from 5th June, 2000, requires review and reconsideration, but at the hands of the Chancellor himself.
4. The impugned suspension order has now been in vogue for almost a-year-and-two-months, even though the term for which the respondent has been appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University itself would be expiring just about seven months hereafter. (The parties have told us that the respondent was appointed on this post for a period of three years in March 1999), During this period of one-year-and-two-months, eight criminal cases which had formed the basis of the arrest of the respondent in June 2000, have still not seen the light of the day. In none of these cases has the investigation/enquiry been completed so far. Charge-sheet/final-report has not been filed in any Court in any of these cases either One important fact can also not be lost sight of and, that is, that these criminal cases relate to alleged happenings and events which allegedly occurred at a point of time much prior to the appointment of the respondent as Vice-Chancellor of the University.
5. The aforesaid facts have been narrated by us only with a limited purpose of persuading us to come to a conclusion that the circumstances warrant that the Impugned suspension order Is accorded areview/reconsideration by the Chancellor. Actually, it is up to the Chancellor to decide and find cut whether the aforesaid facts are relevant and material while he embarks upon the adjudicatory exercise of deciding whether to continue with the suspension of the respondent, to revoke the same or to take any other action in the matter. If, in the process of review/reconsideration of the impugned suspension order, based on the material available, the Chancellor finds that the continued suspension of the respondent is not warranted, it is entirely up to him to order the revocation of the suspension order and to direct his reinstatement. But, if he finds that enough material exists, and that based on such material and other considerations, relevant and germane to the points in issue, it is not in the Interest of the University nor in public interest that the respondent occupies the post of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, undoubtedly no useful purposes would be served by continuing with the suspension of the respondent and in that event, the Chancellor may even consider invoking Section 11 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. What is the effect of the pendency of the investigations in the aforesaid criminal cases for a long time without the investigation having been completed so far, can be a factor which the Chancellor may like to consider and take into account. In any event, while looking to the material relating to the aforesaid eight criminal cases, it also might be worthwhile for the Chancellor to find out whether with relation to these cases, any material exists which implicates culpably or otherwise the respondent in any act of omission or commission. All these, of course, are issues which lie in the domain of the Chancellor to be taken note of while embarking upon the adjudicatory process. We have refrained from expressing any opinion with regard to any such issue. The observations made hereinabove by us should not be construed as any expression of opinion by us because these observations have been made only in the context of our decision to refer the matter for review/reconsideration by the Chancellor. There was no other purpose for making such observations.
6. One observation, however, we must not hesitate to make at this stage and, that is, that since the issue of the pendency of thecriminal cases is clearly and directly interlinked with the arrest and detention of the respondent in June 2000, we have no doubt in our mind that the arrest and detention by itself, in isolation, de hors any material forming the basis of the criminal cases should not by itself be a ground or, should we say, might not be a ground, for continuing with the suspension of the respondent. The arrest and detention by itself, as a stray event, unconnected with any other relevant issues, perhaps, may not be a valid reason for suspension, unless the Statute, Rules, Regulations or the Policy of the University stipulate the same as a sustainable ground for placing someone under suspension. But for this opinion which we have expressed with respect to the arrest and detention of the respondent in June 2000, we reiterate that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as any expression of opinion by us with respect to the merits of the controversy nor shall any such observation tend to influence the mind of the Chancellor in any manner. The Chancellor shall decide the matter on its own merits and by exercising his judgment.
7. Because of the fact that the respondent resumed the charge of the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University on 11th July, 2001, and is continuing to occupy the office till date, we are not inclined to disturb the status quo. Of course, any order passed by the Chancellor based on the aforesaid observations shall determine the future course of action.
8. The appeal is disposed of. The judgment of the learned single Judge is modifiedto the extent as indicated above. There will beno order as to costs.
9. L.P.A. disposed of.