Birendra Kumar Pandey v. The Vice Chancellor Veer Kunwar Singh University And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16119 of 2014 =========================================================== Birendra Kumar Pandey Son of Late Jagdanand Pandey, resident of village- Barap, P.S. Garhani, District- Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara District- Bhojpur.

2. The Registrar, Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara District- Bhojpur.

3. The Inspector of College, Veer Kuawar Singh University, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara.

6. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna.

7. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Garhani Branch, DistrictBhojpur.

8. Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, Son of Late Sacchidanand Pandey, resident of village- Barap, P.S.- Garahani, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr. S.K. Jha, G.P.3 For the University :

Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate For Res. No.8 :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Bank :

Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-04-2016 The original writ application was filed for a direction upon the University to conclude the enquiry relating to financial irregularities committed by respondent no.8.

The committee set up by the University has finally given a report which is dated 10.03.2016. Now an interlocutory application has been filed which is I.A. No.2762 of 2016 challenging the report as well as seeking its quashing because obviously the allegations made by the petitioner has not been found to be correct by the enquiry

Patna High Court CWJC No.16119 of 2014 dt.07-04-2016 2 / 2 committee.

The correctness or otherwise of the fact finding committee set up by the University is not required to be gone into or adjudicated by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, therefore, rejects the said interlocutory application. The University will do what is necessary in terms of the report of the committee. The petitioner has other remedies as well except Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Sanjay/- U