A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. In these Letters Patent Appeals, a common judgment and order dated 12th September, 2011, passed in Writ Petition Nos.1301/2011 (Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Anil Devaji Gaikwad and others), 1978 of 2011 (Diwakar Maloji Kamble vs. Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others), 1979 of 2011 (Anil Dewaji Gaikwad vs. Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others), 1315 of 2011 (Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Rajkumar Kisanrao Bhagat and others) and 1314 of 2011 ((Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Diwakar Maloji Kamble and others), by which the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the prior permission of the Nagpur University was required before terminating the services of the original appellants Anil Gaikwad, Diwakar Kamble and Rajkumar Bhagat who had filed appeals before the University and College Tribunal; and the orders made by the College Tribunal to hold de novo enquiry against them and the order directing reinstatement and payment of backwages were also confirmed.

FACTS:

3. Appellant No.1 Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha runs Rajiv Gandhi Mahavidyalaya at Sadak-Arjuni, district Gondia. The three employees [(i) Anil Gaikwad (ii) Diwakar Kamble and (iii)Rajkumr Bhagat] were appointed in accordance with the procedure for selection about which there is no dispute. Anil Gaikwad was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on 21.9.1996, Diwakar Kamble was appointed as Lecturer in History on 21.9.1996, and Rajkumar Bhagat was appointed as a Lecturer in Sociology on 25.9.1994. The appointment orders of these three lecturers are similarly worded, so also the approvals granted by the Nagpur University. The approval was from the academic session of appointments and onwards on ad hoc basis subject to the conditions as per the Government Resolution dated 22.12.1995. Admittedly, all three of them had completed minimum period of 24 months. They were chargesheeted by the Management for certain acts of misconduct. Chargesheet was issued to Anil Gaikwad on 23.1.2007, Diwakar Kamble on 25.6.2004, and Rajkumar Bhagat on 8.4.2002.

4. In order to conduct Departmental enquiries against them, respective enquiry officers were appointed. Upon completion of enquiries against them, they were found guilty of majority of charges. After receipt of the enquiry reports in each case, the Management took decision and decided to terminate the services of all of them by different termination orders which were accordingly issued. All the three employees filed three different appeals before the University and College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1984. These appeals were heard and disposed of by the Tribunal and were allowed with certain findings against the Management and certain findings against the employees. The Management filed three writ petitions in this Court, details in respect of which are already given here-in-above while Anil Gaikwad and Diwakar Kamble also filed two writ petitions. These writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court who disposed of the same by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, these Letters Patent Appeals, five in number, were filed by the Management being dissatisfied with the findings and orders made by the learned Single Judge.

SUBMISSIONS:

5. In support of these Letters Patent Appeals, Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior advocate with Mr. R.M. Bhangde, made the following submissions:

(i) The Courts below have committed a serious error of law in ignoring the basic principles of pleadings and proof which vigorously apply even in the cases of service matters and in particular, the cases where orders of dismissal from service are made consequent to the conduct of regular departmental enquiry. Right from the decision in the case of Shankar Vs. Britaniya Biscuits