JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2.The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Pune whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of termination and imposition of punishment has been allowed and the said order passed by the Management on 29th May, 1999 has been set aside along with the findings recorded in the regular enquiry held preceding the said order and has further held that the respondent, having retired on attaining the age of superannuation, is entitled for all the benefits which a retired employee is entitled to under the provisions of law. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has totally ignored the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called as "the Pension Rules") which, according to the petitioner, empower the management to hold disciplinary inquiry and impose punishment including reduction in the pension once such an inquiry had commenced by service of charge-sheet while the employee was still in service or in case employee was suspended prior to the date of retirement.

3.The facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent was the employee of the petitioners institution and, on the ground of misconduct he was suspended from his service from 24-11-1992. The charge-sheet was served upon the respondent on 11-7-1994. The alleged inquiry was conducted and findings were submitted on 28-8-1995 which were sought to be challenged by way of petition being Writ Petition No. 24 of 1994 and by an order dated 19-9-1995 passed by this Court, the inquiry was quashed and set aside and, the management was directed to complete preliminary inquiry before proceeding to hold disciplinary inquiry. Proposal of three names for appointment as the Inquiry Officer was submitted by the management of the petitioners institution to the University on 2-5-1996 and approval thereof was granted on 4-5-1996. The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31-5-1996. The preliminary inquiry was allegedly conducted during the period from 15-8-1996 to 2-8-1997 and the management accepted the report on 9-8-1997. The proposal is stated to have been submitted to the University in terms of resolution of the management on 14-8-1997 and, the University is stated to have granted permission to proceed with the regular inquiry on 13-10-1997. The management appointed inquiry officer for holding inquiry on 20-10-1997. It is stated that to have been approved by the University on 17-12-1997, the charge-sheet was served upon the respondent on 17-2-1998 and the inquiry was commenced on 15-4-1998. The management took decision for removal of the respondent with effect from 24-11-1992 by a Resolution dated 25-9-1999. Being aggrieved by the said decision the respondent filed an appeal being Appeal No. 20 of 1999 before the College Tribunal which came to be allowed by the impugned order as stated above. The challenge before the Tribunal to the action taken by the petitioners was mainly on two counts viz. (1) that the respondent having attained the age of superannuation on 31-5-1996, the petitioners could not have initiated disciplinary action after the said day, and (2) that the termination of service cannot be with retrospective date. The respondents contentions were accepted by the Tribunal and the order of termination of service was set aside.

4.Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in (State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar)1, reported in 1998(2) S.C.C. 52; (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another)2, reported in 1987(2) S.C.C 179 and (Takhartray Shivadattray Mankad v. State of Gujarat)3, reported in 1989 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 110 and drawing attention to Rule 27 of the Pension Rules, it was sought to be argued by the learned Advocate fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document