The court emphasized the necessity of following proper inquiry procedures under the applicable laws to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice, ruling the removal as disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The rule was issued in this Petition on 07 December 2017, and the hearing was expedited.

3. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 22/25 September 2017 (Exhibit H) by which he was removed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (“JJB”), Mumbai.

4. By Notification dated 18 June 2015, the Petitioner was appointed as a Member of the JJB by following the due procedure for selection. On 16 December 2016, the Principal Magistrate [Chairperson] filed a complaint against the Petitioner alleging misconduct, misbehaviour and abuse of power. A similar complaint was also made to the High Court, which the Registrar forwarded to the State Government. A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 23 December 2016. On 20 January 2017, the State Government instructed the Commissioner for Women and Child Development to form a committee to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.

5. A committee was formed and submitted its report on 02 June 2017, which was forwarded by the Commissioner, Women and Child Development, to the State Government on 19 June 2017. A copy of the report was provided to the Petitioner, who was given an opportunity to present his case. After considering the Petitioner’s response, the impugned order dated 22/25 September 2017 dismissed the Petitioner as a Member of the JJB. Hence, this Petition.

6. At the time the Petitioner was appointed as a Member, via Notification dated 18 June 2015, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“2000 Act”) and the Rules made thereunder in 2007 were in force. However, when the Petitioner was removed as a Member, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (“2015 Act”) had come into force, effective from 15 January 2016. The Petitioner was removed on 22/25 September 2017, but the Rules under the 2015 Act only came into force in January 2018.

7. Dr. Warujikar’s first contention was that since the Petitioner was appointed under the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules, his removal ought to be governed by the 2000 Act and Rule 92(2) of the 2007 Rules. He submitted that in terms of Rule 92(2) of the 2007 Rules, only a Selection Committee constituted under Rule 91 of the 2007 Rules was empowered to hold a necessary inquiry into the complaint against any member of the JJB and recommend termination of such member to the State Government, if required. He submitted that in this case, the complaint against the Petitioner was never referred to such Selection Board and consequently, the procedure prescribed under Rules 91 and 92 of the 2007 Rules was openly flouted. He submitted that on account of this glaring infirmity, the impugned removal order is ultra vires, null and void. Dr. Warunjikar relied on (1) Smt. Anita Sadanand Vipat Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.11080 of 2017, decided on 15/11/2017; (2) Poonam Chandrashekhar Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1286; and (3) Renuka Vishnu Ghule Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.2400 of 2014, decided on 14 October 2014 in support of his contentions.

8. Without prejudice, Dr. Warunjikar submitted that the inquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. He submitted that the inquiry committee, which was not properly constituted, recorded the statements of Priya Gavade, Sandhya Ballal and R. R. Kulkarni. Such statemen