Point of Law : Enquiry proceedings were vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. On the aspect of the requirement of prior permission under Statute 53 it was held that since the said employees were treated as ‘quasi-permanent’ such permission was not necessary. The judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by the Management as the order of termination had been set aside.

JUDGMENT :

This reference to the Division Bench has been made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for answering the following question that was referred by learned Single Judge :

“Whether the requirement of the proviso below Clause 5 of Statute 53 is attracted in a case where an employee is terminated on the ground of wilful and persistent neglect of duty and/or misconduct, covered by Clause 8(a) and (b) of the Contract Schedule-A appended to Ordinance No.24-College Code?”

2. Relevant facts that require mention are that the respondent no.1-Lecturer came to be appointed at the petitioner no.2-College on 03.09.1984. On completion of the period of probation his services were confirmed. During the course of service, the Management initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent no.1 and on its conclusion his services came to be terminated. The respondent no.1 preferred an appeal challenging the order of termination before the University and College Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal held that the order of termination was vitiated, one of the reasons being absence of prior permission of the Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur under Statute 53 before issuing the order of termination. In addition, the enquiry proceedings were found to have been vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice. An application seeking permission to terminate the services after filing of the appeal was also rejected. The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in Writ Petition No.1836 of 2009. By the judgment dated 20.01.2009 liberty was granted to the petitioners to continue with the enquiry proceedings from the stage at which it was found to have been vitiated. On completion of the enquiry proceedings after remand, the services of the respondent no.1 came to be terminated on 01.03.2018. The respondent no.1 again approached the Tribunal for challenging the order of termination and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 20.12.2019 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination of the ground that prior permission of the University as contemplated by Statute 53 had not been obtained. The aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. One of the grounds of challenge raised to the order of the Tribunal before the learned Single Judge was that as the services of the respondent no.1 had been confirmed after 02.01.1978 and he was terminated from service after holding a departmental enquiry there was no requirement for the Management to obtain prior permission of the University before terminating his services. Proviso to Clause 5 of Statute 53 was not attracted in these facts according to the petitioners. Attention of the learned Single Judge was invited to the judgment dated 08.11.2019 in Writ Petition No.147 of 2016 [Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha Nagpur & Another Versus Sanjay Vidyasagar Soni & Others] wherein it was held that the Tribunal in that case was right in holding that the termination of services of the employee therein was illegal as well as null and void for want of prior approval as required by the proviso to Clause 5 of Statute 53. The learned Single Judge while issuing notice in the present writ petition did not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that even when the services of a confirmed employee are terminated after holding a department enquiry, it was still necessary to seek prior approval of the University by virtue of the proviso to Clause 5 of Statute 53. Since the termination of service in the present case was on account of misconduct, such prior approval was not required according to learned Single Judge. In this context, the question referred to hereinabove was framed and accordingly, the writ petition was placed before the Division Bench.

4. Shri Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for the Management inter alia submitted that where the services of an employee who is appointed after 02.01.1978 and h