"Judicial Scrutiny on Administrative Misconduct: Patna High Court Revokes Suspension of College Principal"

 

Introduction

This case revolves around the suspension of Dr. Meena Prasad, the Principal of Women’s College, Samastipur, under Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, Bihar. She was suspended through a notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor on July 30, 2021. Dr. Prasad challenged this order in the Patna High Court, arguing that her suspension was illegal and against the university statutes. The court ruled in her favor, revoking the suspension and reinstating her to her previous position.

Background of the Case

Dr. Meena Prasad, a well-established academician, was serving as the Principal of Women’s College, Samastipur. On July 30, 2021, she was suspended with immediate effect by the Vice-Chancellor of Lalit Narayan Mithila University. As per the suspension order, her headquarters were fixed at J.M.D.P.L. Mahila College, Madhubani, and Dr. Sunita Sinha was appointed as the Professor-in-charge in her place.

The petitioner, Dr. Prasad, moved the Patna High Court seeking the following reliefs:

1. To quash the suspension order, as it was issued in violation of university rules and statutes.

2. To direct the university authorities to reinstate her immediately with all consequential benefits, including salary and allowances.

3. To highlight the procedural lapses, including the non-payment of subsistence allowance and lack of a formal departmental inquiry.

Arguments by the Petitioner

1. Violation of University Statutes: Dr. Prasad’s counsel argued that the suspension order was passed without following the due process laid down in Articles 10 and 15 of the University Statutes. As per these provisions:

   • A university employee can only be suspended under specific circumstances, such as an ongoing criminal case or a departmental inquiry proving gross misconduct.

   • Suspension should not be used as a penalty unless a proper investigation has been conducted.

2. Lack of Due Process:

   • Dr. Prasad was suspended without being served a formal charge sheet.

   • No departmental inquiry was initiated even after 11 months of suspension.

   • She was not provided with a subsistence allowance, which is legally mandated for suspended employees.

3. Allegations Were Baseless: Dr. Prasad had raised concerns regarding irregularities in administrative records at Samastipur College. She had also visited the college on July 13, 2021, where an altercation took place. The university authorities, instead of addressing these irregularities, issued her a show-cause notice on July 27, 2021, leading to her suspension without any substantial grounds.

Defense by the University

1. Justification for Suspension: The university argued that the suspension order was issued after following due process. The Vice-Chancellor had exercised his powers under Section 10(18) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, based on prima facie evidence suggesting financial misconduct, gross negligence, and tampering with official records.

2. Investigation Was Conducted: The university maintained that an inquiry was conducted before suspending Dr. Prasad and that she was given an opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice before the final decision.

3. Suspension as a Penalty: The defense suggested that the suspension was imposed under Article 15(4) of the University Statutes, treating it as a penalty, and therefore, Dr. Prasad should have filed an appeal instead of a writ petition.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the Patna High Court made the following observations:

1. Suspension Without Inquiry is Unlawful: The court noted that under Article 10(2) of the University Statutes, an employee can only be suspended if:

   • They are facing a criminal case.

   • A departmental inquiry has been initiated and prima facie evidence supports the charges.

   • There is a risk of tampering with evidence.

   • The employee refuses to take leave during an investigation. Since none of these conditions were met, the court deemed the suspension unlawful.

2. Delay in Departmental Proceedings: The court found that 11 months had passed since the suspension, yet no charge sheet had been issued and no inquiry had commenced. This contradicted the principle that suspension should be temporary and not punitive.

3. Non-Payment of Subsistence Allowance is Illegal: The court cited Supreme Court rulings (Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.) stating that failure to pay subsistence allowance to a suspended employee is unconstitutional and amounts to a denial of the right to a fair trial.

4. Suspension Cannot Be Used as a Punishment: The court emphasized that suspension is meant to facilitate a fair investigation, not to serve as an advance punishment. Since no formal inquiry was initiated, the continued suspension was unjustified.

Final Judgment

• The court revoked the suspension order and directed the university to reinstate Dr. Prasad immediately.

• It clarified that the university is free to conduct a departmental inquiry, but it must follow proper legal procedures.

• Dr. Prasad was granted the right to claim her subsistence allowance and pending salary.

• The university was warned against misusing its administrative powers for punitive actions without due process.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Administrative Actions Must Follow Due Process: Universities and educational institutions must adhere to established statutes while taking disciplinary action against employees.

2. Suspension Without Inquiry is Unjust: Employees cannot be indefinitely suspended without a formal charge sheet and inquiry.

3. Subsistence Allowance is a Legal Right: Any suspended employee is entitled to a subsistence allowance; failure to provide it is illegal.

4. Judicial Protection Against Arbitrary Suspension: The ruling reinforces that the judiciary will intervene if administrative authorities misuse their powers.

5. Educational Governance Should Be Fair: The case underscores the need for transparency and accountability in the administration of educational institutions.

Conclusion

This case serves as a landmark judgment in protecting the rights of employees against arbitrary administrative actions. The ruling ensures that educational institutions follow legal and ethical standards in handling disciplinary matters. Dr. Meena Prasad’s victory in court highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding fairness and procedural integrity in public institutions.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTUwMDgjMjAyMSMxI04=-zbR2O5OBtPs=