IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
A.S. CHANDURKAR, M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
Shri Santoshrao, s/o. Madhavrao Thakare - Petitioner
Versus
Shri Gadge Maharaj Vidyalaya Mandal and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2348 Of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 2570 Of 2022 with Writ Petition No. 2190 Of 2021
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - Section 12 - Challenged direction - College - employees - Seeking implementation - Ancillary prayers - Payment of salary-initiate disciplinary action - Held, In any event court find that Section 12(14) of Act of 2016 does not empower Vice-Chancellor to direct constitution of a three member Committee to enquire and look into grievances of teachers of an affiliated College as regards conduct of their Principal - Consequently It is held that impugned communication issued by Vice-Chancellor is without any statutory authority and has no legal basis - As a result all further acts undertaken pursuant to impugned communication would also fall to ground - This would include report of said three member Committee along with its recommendations on basis of which Vice-Chancellor has on directed the Management to hold a departmental enquiry against Principal - That communication is also liable to be set aside - Writ Petitions is Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
(A.S. Chandurkar, J.)
1. Since common issues arise in these Writ Petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2348/2021 – hereinafter referred to as ‘Principal’ came to be appointed as a Principal at Shri Gadge Maharaj Vidyalaya, Murtizapur, District – Akola – hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’ on 22/11/2016. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 – hereinafter referred to as ‘the aggrieved employees’ filed a complaint against the Principal on 13/11/2020 at Police Station – Murtizapur. They pursued the matter by making various other complaints to the Authorities. Based on the complaint made to Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University on 17/11/2020, the Vice-Chancellor on 18/11/2020 constituted a three member Committee to consider the grievances made by the aggrieved employees and particularly with regard to failure on part of the Principal in avoiding to send relevant placement papers of some Lecturers from the year 2017-18, use of abusive language by the Principal since complaints were made against him and the act of the Principal of issuing notices to the aggrieved employees so as to demoralize them. The three member Committee sought to enquire into the matter which was objected to by the Principal. The said three member Committee submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor and hence on 18/2/2021, the Vice-Chancellor directed the College to hold disciplinary proceedings against the Principal and submit a report to the Vice- Chancellor. The Principal is thus aggrieved by the said action and has challenged the direction issued by the Vice-Chancellor on 18/11/2020 constituting a three member Committee to enquire into the complaints as well as the communication dated 18/2/2021 issued by the Vice- Chancellor to the College to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the Principal.
2. The aggrieved employees have filed Writ Petition No. 2190/2021 seeking implementation of the communication dated 18/2/2021 issued by the Vice-Chancellor to the College and disciplinary enquiry to be conducted against the Principal. The other ancillary prayers with regard to taking necessary steps for pay fixation as well as payment of salary for eleven days are also made in the said Writ Petition.
Shri Gadge Maharaj Vidyalaya Mandal – hereinafter referred to as ‘the Management’ has preferred Writ Petition No. 2570/2022 and it seeks consideration of its proposal dated 22/10/2021 seeking approval to re-appointment of the Principal for another term of five years. By amending the Writ Petition, the order dated 12/8/2022 passed by the Registrar of the University refusing to approve the proposal for reappointment of Principal is also under challenge.
3. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the Principal submitted that there is no jurisdiction vested with the Vice-Chancellor of the University to direct the Management of an affiliated College to initiate disciplinary action against its employees. The Management, being the master of its employees which included the Principal, could alone initiate disciplinary action against him. Section 12 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short “the Act of 2016”) which provides for the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor does not confer any specific power on the Vice-Chancellor to initiate disciplinary action against an employee of the Management is the submission. A reference was made to the absence of such power by referring to the provisions of Section 12(14) of the Act of 2016. It was submitted that the aggrieved employees could take recourse to the provisions of Section 79 of the Act of 2016 and approach the Grievances Committee in that regard. The Grievances Committee was empowered to deal with the grievances that were sought to be raised by the aggrieved employees. In absence of there being any power conferred on the Vice-Chancellor to entertain such grievances, the impugned communication dated 18/11/2020 being without any authority of law
N. Mani Vs. Sangeetha Theatre And Others
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and others Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal And Others
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that failure to provide necessary documents and cross-examination opportunities inv....
Dismissal of an employee without a fair inquiry violates natural justice principles and statutory provisions, making the writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedies.
The Vice Chancellor's jurisdiction was limited to ensuring no gross illegality or injustice was committed by the Management, and the refusal to grant approval was only justified in cases of patent ar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a disciplinary authority, such as the Executive Council, exercises quasi-judicial function and lacks the authority to review its own decision ....
The court established that in the absence of a governing body, a Special Officer appointed under the Orissa Education Act has the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and the Director can ....
The court affirmed the authority of the Board for Adjudication of Students Grievances to address student disciplinary complaints, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures established in educatio....
The Vice-Chancellor of a university has the authority to suspend and take disciplinary action against officers, including the Registrar, as per the Bihar State University Act, 1976.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.