Suspension of an employee must be justified by a strong prima facie case of misconduct involving moral turpitude; arbitrary actions violate constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Bharati Dangre, J)

1. The Petitioner, Dr.Manohar Sanap, working as Professor of Commerce in Ness Wadia College of Commerce, Pune, is aggrieved by the letter of suspension issued to him by the Modern Education Society, Pune i.e. Respondent No.3, thereby placing him under suspension, pursuant to the decision taken by the Board of Trustees on 02/08/2024, in the wake of complaints received from various lady teachers and prima facie finding him guilty of criminal offences, involving criminal turpitude.

The said letter direct that he shall be placed under suspension with immediate effect, during the pendency of the enquiry.

Alongwith the letter of suspension, a charge-sheet containing the statement of allegations is also served upon the Petitioner, which has levelled four charges, which according to the Society, warrant major penalty, on they being proved.

By the very same communication, a retired Ad-hoc District Judge, Pune is appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and the Petitioner is asked to submit his reply to the charge-sheet alongwith the statement of allegations within three weeks thereafter.

2. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the suspension order and the enquiry proceedings are clamped upon him, as being duly qualified to be appointed as Registrar of the Respondent No.1-University, as per the provision of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short, “Act of 2016”) and on going through the selection process, he was expecting to be appointed on the said post, but in order to rebuff the chances of his appointment, some miscreant elements were instrumental in getting him suspended, by issuance of letter dated 02/08/2024, so that he is kept away from the appointment to the post of Registrar, despite being qualified to hold the post.

3. We have heard learned senior counsel Mr.Anturkar, with Mr.Akshay Karlekar for the Petitioner, Mr.Rajendra Anbhule with Nisha Ahire for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Learned senior counsel Mr.Girish Godbole with Mr.Arun Unnikrishnan has represented Respondent No.3-Modern Education Society and the Ness Wadia College of Commerce-the Respondent No.4.

The Principal Secretary of Higher and Technical Education and the Director of Higher Education are represented by Mr.B.V.Samant, learned Additional Government Pleader.

By consent of the respective counsel appearing for the parties, we issue ‘Rule’. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for hearing.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr.Anturkar, in support of the Petitioner, would submit that the power of initiating an enquiry against the Petitioner or for placing him under suspension can be traced to the statute governing the terms and conditions of service of the teachers appointed in the university/colleges and institutions run by the university/affiliated colleges/constituent colleges/recognised institutions of the University of Poona under Section 42 and/or 73 of the Poona University Act, 1974.

Statute 433-A is invoked by him, as it prescribe the procedure for inflicting penalties and, according to him, the power to be exercised in suspending a teacher, shall be exercised only if the teacher is alleged to be guilty of offence of a criminal nature, involving moral turpitude and if there are reasons to believe that the offence being proved, he deserves to be removed or dismissed from the service and the competent authority shall first decide, whether the person concerned shall be placed under suspension.

As per the said statute, alongwith the order of suspension, the order of appointment of the Inquiry Officer/Committee, charge-sheet and list of evidence shall be furnished simultaneously and it is imperative for the Authority to commence the inquiry and complete the same expeditiously.

The teacher under suspension is entitled for the salary, as provided under the statute and the statute itself set out the entire procedure of conduct of the inquiry, with a specific provision that period of