Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S.Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
S. D. Nikam - Appellant
Versus
Gokhale Education Society Educational Trust - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9259 of 2023
Decided On : 03-11-2023
SUSPENSION - SERVICE LAW - Poona University Act, 1974; Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016; Statute 433-A(3)(A)(i) - The court examined the legality of the suspension of the petitioner, an Associate Professor, under the provisions of the Poona University Act and its Statutes. It highlighted that suspension could only occur if the teacher was guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude. The court interpreted 'moral turpitude' as conduct that is inherently base or depraved, and concluded that the charges against the petitioner, stemming from a motor vehicle accident, did not meet this threshold. The court ruled that the suspension was illegal and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Associate Professor, was suspended by the respondent institution due to being in judicial custody for over 48 hours following a motor vehicle accident that led to criminal charges against him. The suspension was based on the provisions of the Statutes of the University of Pune, which require a finding of moral turpitude for such action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order was illegal as the charges against the petitioner did not involve moral turpitude. It emphasized that the nature of the alleged offences did not indicate a depraved character or intent, which is necessary for a suspension under the relevant statutes.
Issues: Whether the suspension of the petitioner was justified based on the alleged criminal charges and whether those charges involved moral turpitude as defined by the applicable statutes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the definition of moral turpitude requires an act that shocks the moral conscience of society and involves a base motive. The mere involvement in a motor vehicle accident does not inherently constitute moral turpitude, and thus the suspension was not warranted.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the suspension order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full salary for the period of suspension.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
G.S.KULKARNI, J. - Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India depicts an unfortunate case wherein the petitioner, who was working on the post of Associate Professor with respondent no. 1-Institution, has suffered suspension from service, at the hands of respondent no. 1, by a suspension order dtd. 28/11/2022. The suspension is on the ground that the petitioner was in judicial custody on a criminal charge, for a period exceeding 48 hours. The suspension order reads thus:
Dr. S.D. Nikam, Associate Professor of Accountancy, RNC Arts, JDB Commerce and NSC Science College, Nasik Road is hereby intimated that he shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 29/11/2022 due to Judicial Custody on a Criminal Charge for a period exceeding 48 hours. Since he is under suspension, no leave can be granted by the College or the Society."
3. The suspension order is stated to be issued under the provisions of the "Statutes" of the University of Pune, which govern the terms and conditions of service of the teachers appointed in the University/Colleges and Institutions conducted by the University/Affiliated Colleges/Constituent Colleges/ Recognized Institutions of the University of Poona, as framed under Sec. 42 and/or 73 of the Poona University Act, 1974, in vogue at the relevant time. Such 'Statutes' of the University continue to operate under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, which presently govern the non-agricultural universities and the institutions affiliated to the universities.
4. Statute 433-A(3) provides for "Procedure for infliction of major penalties, under which Clause (3)(A)(i) provides for 'suspension'. It would be necessary to note the said provision, which reads thus:
(1) .....
(2) .....
(3) Procedure for infliction of major penalties:
(A) Suspension:
(i) If the teacher is alleged to be guilty of an offence of a criminal nature involving moral turpitude and if there are reasons to believe that in the event of the offence being proved against him he would deserve to be removed or dismissed from service, the Competent Authority as specified in S. 433 shall first decide whether the person concerned should be placed under suspension.
(ii) The Competent Authority shall issue order of suspension of the teacher, the order of appointment of the Inquiry Officer/Committee, charge-sheet (including statement of allegations) and list of evidence, simultaneously.
(iii) The Inquiry Authority shall commence inquiry and complete the same expeditiously.
Statute 433 and 433-A came into force w.e.f. 9/10/1981.
(iv) The teacher under suspension shall be paid the salary at half the pay an allowances admissible thereon for period of first three months of suspension, at the rate of 75 % of the pay and allowances admissible thereon for the period of next three months, and at the rate of full pay and allowances admissible thereon, thereof."
(emphasis supplied)
5. Thus the said statute of the University under the heading "Suspension" inter alia provides that if the teacher is alleged to be guilty of an offence of a criminal nature involving "moral turpitude" and if there are reasons to believe that in the event of the offence being proved against him, he would deserve to be removed or dismissed from service, the Competent Authority as specified in Statute 433, shall first decide whether the person concerned should be placed under suspension. The grievance of the petitioner is that the suspension order is per se illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Statute 433-A(3)(A)(i) of the Statute of University of Pune, inasmuch as, the petitioner could have been suspended only in the event of the petitioner being involved in the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude, with the likelihood that such offence being proved against him, he would deserve to be removed or d
Suspension of a teacher under university statutes requires a finding of moral turpitude, which was not established in the case of a motor vehicle accident without mens rea.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that termination of service based on conviction can be justified if the offence involves moral turpitude and exceeds the right of private defence.
Conviction under Section 323 IPC does not warrant dismissal; absence of moral turpitude requires proportional disciplinary action.
1. Conviction of an employee in an offence permits the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee or to take appropriate steps for his dismissal/removal only on ....
Suspension of an employee must be justified by a strong prima facie case of misconduct involving moral turpitude; arbitrary actions violate constitutional rights.
Rioting with damage to public property and assault on public servants constitutes moral turpitude under municipal disqualification provision; no stay of conviction without exceptional irreparable inj....
Detention - Petitioner who suppressed the material information in the application form, though disclosed in attestation form placed on record by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I disclosi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
