1989 (4) TMI 323 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Vice-Chancellor to direct disciplinary action.
2. Legal effect of ratification by the Executive Council.

Summary:

Issue 1: Competence of the Vice-Chancellor to Direct Disciplinary Action

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent, a Deputy Registrar at Marathwada University. The Vice-Chancellor, acting u/s 11(4) and 11(6)(a) of the Marathwada University Act, 1974, directed a departmental enquiry against the respondent. The Court held that while the Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer with significant powers, these do not extend to taking disciplinary action for removal of officers, which is a power vested in the Executive Council u/s 24(1)(xxix). The Court emphasized that statutory powers must be exercised by the designated body unless properly delegated, and in this case, the delegation was not in accordance with the statutory requirements, particularly lacking the mandatory approval of the Chancellor u/s 24(1)(xii).

Issue 2: Legal Effect of Ratification by the Executive Council

The Court examined the ratification by the Executive Council of the Vice-Chancellor's actions. The Executive Council, in its meeting on December 26/27, 1985, endorsed the actions taken by the Vice-Chancellor. However, the Court held that ratification principles applicable to agency law do not extend to statutory powers. Actions taken without statutory authority are ab initio void and cannot be validated by subsequent ratification. The Court cited the principle that statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. Consequently, neither the Vice-Chancellor's actions nor the subsequent ratification by the Executive Council could be sustained.

Conclusion:

The appeal by Marathwada University was dismissed, affirming the Bombay High Court's decision that the Vice-Chancellor acted without authority and the subsequent ratification by the Executive Council did not cure this defect. The departmental proceedings and the order of termination against the respondent were quashed.