TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. Accordingly, he joined his new assignment and continued to hold that post when the controversy which culminated in his dismissal took place. It is said that one Mr. Swaminathan from Madras was entrusted with the printing works needed to conduct annual examinations of the University for the years 1974 and 1975. Mr. Swaminathan submitted his bills amounting about ₹ 6,00,000 for the work performed by him. The bills were not cleared immediately, and Mr. Swaminathan complained to the University authorities. He also submitted a petition to the Prime Minister of India which was forwarded to the University for immediate action. This led to an enquiry to find out whether the bills were deliberately kept pending with any ulterior motive. The Executive Council of the University appointed a four-member committee including the Vice-Chancellor to enquire into the matter. The committee after investigation submitted a report in November 1977 making some prima facie observations against the respondent. Thereupon, the Executive Council desired to have the matter thoroughly examined by another committee. It appointed Mr. N.B. Chavan for the purpose. Mr. Chavan made a detailed enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is observation, the matter came up before the Executive Council in the meeting held on December 26/27, 1985. The Executive Council passed a resolution inter alia, ratifying the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor and confirming the dismissal of the respondent. This has added a new dimension to the case. At the final disposal of the writ petition, the High Court, however, examined the merits of the matter. The High Court held that the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor was without authority of law. As to the ratification made by the Executive Council, the High Court held: That the acts done by the Vice-Chancellor remain the acts without any authority or powers and that defects cannot be cured by the subsequent resolution. With these conclusions, the High Court quashed the departmental proceedings taken against the respondent and also the order of termination of his services. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Marathwada University by obtaining special leave has appealed to this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant put his contention in two ways: First, he said that on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Marathwada University Act, 1974, the terminat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1): The Executive Council shall be the principal executive authority of the University, and shall consist of the following members, namely,: (i) the Vice-Chancellorexofficio Chairman. Section 24 deals with the powers and duties of the Executive Council. These powers and duties are wide and varied and it is sufficient if we read sub-sections (1), (xxix) and (xii) of sec. 24. They are as follows: 24(1): Subject to such conditions as are prescribed by or under this Act, the Executive Council shall exercise the following powers and perform the following duties, namely ........ 24(1)(xxix): appoint officers and other employees of the University, prescribe their qualifications, fix their emoluments, define the terms and conditions of their service and discipline and where necessary, their duties. 24(1)(x1i): delegate, subject to the approval of the Chancellor, any of its powers (except the power to make Ordinances), to the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar or the Finance Officer, or such other officers or authority of the University or a committee appointed by it, thinks fit. Two other provisions are material, namely, secs. 37 and 84. Section 37, omitting the unnecess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uler; he has not, and should not have autocratic power. Besides, this he must be the chief liaison between his university and the public, he must keep the university alive to the duties it owes to the public which it serves, and he must win support for the university and understanding of its needs not merely from potential benefactors but from the general public and its elected representatives. Last, he must have the strength of character to resist unflinchingly the many forms of pressure to relax standards of all sorts, which are being applied to universities today. This has been approved by the Education Commission, 1964-66. In the report of the Education Commission, 1971 (pages 610-11 para 13.32) it was stated: The person who is expected, above all, to embody the spirit of academic freedom and the principles of good management in a university is the Vice-Chancellor. He stands for the commitment of the university to scholarship and pursuit of truth and can ensure that the executive wing of the university is used to assist the academic community in all its activities. His selection should, therefore, be governed by this overall consideration. Dr. A.H. Homadi in hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) is indeed significant. If the Vice-Chancellor believes that a situation calls for immediate action, he can take such action as he thinks necessary though in the normal course he is not competent to take that action. He must, however, report to the concerned authority or body who would, in the ordinary course, have dealt with the matter. That is not all. His pivotal position as the principal executive officer also carries with him the implied power. It is the magisterial power which is, in our view, plainly to be inferred. This power is essential for him to maintain domestic discipline in the academic and non-academic affairs. In a wide variety of situations in the relationship of tutor and pupil, he has to act firmly and promptly to put down indiscipline and malpractice. It may not be illegitimate if he could call to aid his implied powers and also emergency powers to deal with all such situations. Counsel for the appellant argued that the express power of the Vice-Chancellor to regulate the work and conduct of officers of the University implies as well, the power to take disciplinary action against officers. We are unable to agree with this contention. Firstly, the power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower to take a decision which in the context, was obviously on the report of Mr. Chavan, and not on any other matter or question. He said that he would take a decision in about a month. In our opinion, by the power delegated under the resolution, the Vice-Chancellor could either accept or reject the report with intimation to the Executive Council. He could not have taken any other action and indeed, he was not authorised to take any other action. The other infirmity in the said resolution goes deeper than what it appears. The resolution was not in harmony with the statutory requirement. Section 84 of the Act provides for delegation of powers and it states that any officer or authority of the University may by order, delegate his or its power (except power to make Ordinance and Regulations) to any other officer or authority subject to provisions of the Act and Statutes. Section 24(1)(xii) provides for delegation of power by the Executive Council. It states that the Executive Council may delegate any of its power (except power to make Ordinances) to the Vice-Chancellor or to any other officer subject to the approval of the Chancellor. (underlying is ours). The approval of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there had been a prior authorisation by the principal to do exactly what the agent has done. The interesting point, which has given rise to considerable difficulty and dispute, is that ratification by the principal does not merely give validity to the agent s unauthorised act as from the date of the ratification: it is antedated so as to take effect from the time of the agent s act. Hence the agent is treated as having been authorised from the outset to act as he did. Ratification is equivalent to an antecedent authority . In Bowstead on Agency (14th Ed.) at p. 39) it is stated: Every act whether lawful or unlawful, which is capable of being done by means of an agent (except an act which is in its inception void) is capable of ratification by the person in whose name or on whose behalf it is done ..... The words lawful or unlawful , however, are included primarily to indicate that the doctrine can apply to torts. From them it would follow that a principal by ratification may retrospectively turn what was previously an act wrongful against the principle, e.g. an unauthorised sale, or against a third party, e.g. a wrongful distress, into a legitimate one; or become liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e repository of all powers not be extended to the present case. We were also referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, [1953] 1 All Eng. Law Reports 1113 and in particular the observation of Denning L.J., (at 1118 and 1119): While an administrative function can often be delegated, a judicial function rarely can be. No judicial tribunal can delegate its functions unless it is enabled to do so expressly or by necessary implication. In Local Government Board v. Arlidge the power to delegate was given by necessary implication, but there is nothing in this scheme authorising the board to delegate this function and it cannot be implied. It was suggested that it would be impracticable for the board to sit as a board to decide all these cases, but I see nothing impracticable in that. They have only to fix their quorum at two members and arrange for two members, one from each side, employers and workers, to be responsible for one week at a time. Next, it was suggested that, even if the board could not delegate their functions, at any rate they could ratify the actions of the port manager, but, if the board have no power to delegate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
