The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 17(16) and (17) of the act of 1998 and the determination of the maintainability of the petitioner's appeal before the Executive Council.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

3. The petitioner is before this Court for the second time to agitate grievance in respect of the manner in which his service stood terminated and the avenue of appeal provided under the provisions of the Maharashtra animal and Fishery Sciences University act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1998). In the first round, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ Petition No.3777/2016, which stood disposed of by judgment and order dated 19/10/2018, whereby the order of respondent No.2 Vice-Chancellor of the said University dated 15/01/2014, dismissing the petitioner from service with disqualification for future employment with Government, was stayed, while the Executive Council of the said University was directed to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 17(17) of the act of 1998, including the question of maintainability of the appeal.

4. It was further directed that if the decision of the Executive Council was to be adverse to the interest of the petitioner, it would remained stayed for a further period of 15 days from the date of communication of the order. The subsequent events resulted in adverse orders being passed against the petitioner, as a consequence of which, he was constrained to file the present writ petition and to approach this Court for the second time. On 17/08/2021, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards the service of the petitioner, due to which he has continued in service.

5. The facts in brief leading up to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner being duly qualified was initially appointed as assistant Professor, Department of Dairy Microbiology at the College of Dairy Technology, Pusad, District Yavatmal, which is a constituent College of the respondent No.3 University. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as associate Professor in the same department.

6. The Indian Council of agricultural Research (ICaR) invited concept notes for project under the theme of Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security, to effectively implement a scheme under the National agriculture Innovation Programme (NaIP). The Vice-Chancellor of the said University directed the petitioner to submit a concept note on the above subject. The ICaR was satisfied with the concept note and the presentation made by the petitioner and allotted the said project to the respondent University, as a lead center. This project was to be implemented by the respondent University with other Universities as consortium partners. The petitioner was appointed as the Consortium Principal Investigator (CPI) and other co-Investigators were appointed from various Institutions.

7. In October 2010, a complaint was submitted by the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, village Shekapur and Keroli, District Nanded, alleging that the project was improperly implemented. The said complaint was forwarded by the respondent University to the petitioner. He submitted clarifications along with necessary documents. But, on 07/05/2011, the petitioner was suspended and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. a parallel enquiry was also conducted by the officers of NaIP, New Delhi, to enquire into the alleged irregularities concerning the said project. It is the allegation of the petitioner that such parallel enquiry was conducted by the NaIP behind his back, although the petitioner had addressed numerous communications to the respondent University with a request to permit him to participate in such parallel enquiry. In the said parallel enquiry, the NaIP itself excluded expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,42,57,636/- and certain observations were made. according to the petitioner, the said report became the basis of the departmental enquiry conducted against him and without proper application of mind, it was concluded that the entire aforesa