The Tribunal's decision to go into the merits of the charges and direct reinstatement was erroneous, and the Court remanded the disciplinary proceedings for a fresh enquiry, maintaining the dismissal from service and granting subsistence allowance during the suspension period.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. By this petition petitioners assail judgment and order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. BAMU-02 of 2020. By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 and has set aside the order dated 29.11.2019 imposing penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent no. 2 is directed to be reinstated alongwith back wages from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement alongwith continuity in service.

3. Petitioner no. 1 is a Trust which runs and operates Nirmal Krida and Samaj Prabodhan Trust’s Arts, Science and Commerce College. Petitioner no. 2 is the Principal of the College. The respondent no. 2 has been in employment of Petitioners since 09.07.2009 as Associate Professor.

4. Respondent no. 2 was placed under suspension by order dated 09.01.2018. Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 29.06.2018 was served upon him alleging seven charges. The charges essentially emanated out of alleged conduct of respondent no. 2 in putting his signature on nomination form of Dr. Shaikh Sharfoddin Shaikh Fakroddin in capacity as Principal in connection with the election to the Senate of Dr. Babasaheb Amberdkar Marathwada University. It was alleged in the memorandum of charge-sheet that respondent no. 2 had no authority to act or sign as Principal of the College and he did so unauthorizely. Another allegation was about participation in the process of preparation of the rubber stamp of the college in falsified manner and to use the same fraudulently on nomination form for election and other papers. It was also alleged the respondent no. 2 used fictitious letterhead of the college with malafide intention. It was also alleged that respondent no. 2 failed to take note of appointment order dated 02.08.2017 issued to Dr. Gawande Ganesh authorizing him to act as Vice-Principal during the Academic Year 2017-18. In the last charge, it was alleged that the respondent no. 2’s explanation was called in respect of FIR lodged against him vide letter dated 25.11.2017 and that he failed to submit any explanation.

5. The memorandum of Charge-sheet and suspension orders were issued by the Trust alleging that the principal of college was on leave during the period from 23.10.2017 to 02.11.2017 during which time she had handed over the charge to Dr. Gawande. That respondent no. 2 put his signature on the nomination form of Dr. Shaikh Sharfoddin Shaikh Fakroddin, who was contesting election to the Senate of the University, in capacity as Principal without having any authority. The Principal, therefore, lodged a FIR with police on 09.11.2017. A show-cause notice dated 25.11.2017 was issued to respondent no. 2 calling for his explanation, but he failed to submit any reply. Therefore, Trust proceeded to issue memorandum of charge-sheet to respondent no. 2.

6. Simultaneously with issuance of memorandum of charge-sheet, petitioner-Trust appointed committee consisting of Dr. M.D. Jahagirdar and Dr. G.T. Degaonkar to conduct disciplinary enquiry against respondent no. 2. A communication to that effect was given to the respondent no. 2 by letter dated 29.06.2018. After receipt of the memorandum of charge-sheet and communication appointing Enquiry Committee, respondent no. 2 submitted a letter dated 17.07.2018 in which he did not deal with the merits of the charges nor denied the same. He proceeded to reject the enquiry and proceedings by citing various reasons. He requested for cancellation of the disciplinary action and enquiry.

7. The Enquiry Committee issued two notices to respondent no. 2 on 29.06.2018 and 14.11.2018 fixing two dates of enquiry on 09.08.2018 and 29.11.2018 respectively. Respondent no. 2 did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. He instead approached the University and State Authoriti