Back
2014 Supreme(Guj) 1066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
C.L. Soni, J.
Gujarat Vidyapith - Petitioner
Versus
Piyush Ramanlal Shah - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 8112 of 2009
Decided On : 23-06-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.G. Chauhan with M.R. Ronak Chauhan, Advocates
Headnote:
Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1988 - Section 14(3) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 22 - Gujarat Vidyapith Services Rules, 1972 - Rule 23 - Termination of service - Gran to Reinstatement - Proceeding of selection committee reveals that Registrar and Assistant Registrar also remained present with the respondent, Only respondent is charged for not drawing attention of the selection committee of the UGC guidelines for passing NET -Held, It was a decision of the selection committee and it cannot be believed that Vice-Chancellor and the members of the selection committee were not aware about the requirement of passing NET - Held, considering the nature of the establishment of the university and the respondent having been paid regular salary pending the petition without work and the respondent since have been discharging honorary duties with other institution, the interest of justice will be sub-served if the reinstatement of the respondent is ordered with 25% of back-wages - Petition partly allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The respondent was initially appointed as Assistant Registrar and later served as Development Officer and in charge of the Registrar position, during which he was involved in various administrative activities (!) (!) .
-
A detailed inquiry process was conducted against the respondent, including a disciplinary inquiry by a retired District Judge, which found certain charges proved, leading to a dismissal order by the Vice Chancellor (!) (!) .
-
The respondent challenged the dismissal before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, quashed the disciplinary and appellate orders, and directed reinstatement with full back wages, causing significant financial implications for the university (!) (!) .
-
The university contended that the disciplinary authority was the Executive Council, not the Vice Chancellor, and that the Tribunal erred in reappreciating evidence and interfering with the order of punishment, which was within its jurisdiction under the applicable laws (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The respondent argued that the Vice Chancellor lacked the authority to pass disciplinary orders and that the charges did not constitute misconduct under the rules. He also contended that the Tribunal's jurisdiction included re-evaluating evidence and that the order of the Tribunal was justified based on the evidence and the scope of the law (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court examined the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under relevant statutes, emphasizing its authority to review the legality of disciplinary actions, including re-assessment of evidence, and noted that findings based on evidence cannot be substituted by the courts or Tribunal unless there is a manifest error or violation of principles of natural justice (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court found that the charges proved against the respondent did not amount to misconduct under the applicable rules and that the Tribunal's interference in re-evaluating evidence was beyond its jurisdiction, thus setting aside the Tribunal's order to reinstate with full back wages (!) (!) .
-
The court also observed that the respondent enjoyed the confidence of higher authorities during his tenure, and the irregularities, if any, were often with the approval or active participation of higher officials, making it unjust to attribute sole responsibility to him (!) (!) .
-
The court modified the order regarding back wages, limiting the respondent's entitlement to 25% of the back wages, and ordered his reinstatement within six weeks, considering the financial burden on the university and the fact that the respondent was receiving salary without work (!) (!) .
-
The petition was partly allowed, confirming the legality of the disciplinary proceedings and reinstatement, but restricting the back wages to 25%, and dismissing the stay request on the reinstatement order (!) (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal and factual issues discussed in the document, including the authority of disciplinary bodies, scope of Tribunal jurisdiction, and the principles governing judicial review of administrative and disciplinary actions.
JUDGMENT :
C.L. Soni, J.
In this petition filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner the Gujarat Vidhyapith, a deemed university has challenged judgment and order dated 30.03.2009 passed by Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal, ('the Tribunal' for short) in Appeal No. 1 of 2008 preferred by the respondent against the order of his dismissal from service.
2. As per the facts stated in the petition, the respondent was initially appointed as Assistant Registrar with effect from 20.01.1990. By the order dated 28.03.1998, respondent came to be appointed as development officer of the University. During his tenure as development officer, since regular registrar of the University retired from service with effect from 30.11.2000, he was given charge of Registrar with effect from 01.12.2000 till 31.03.2004 and from 01.04.2004 Dr. Rajendra Khemani came to be appointed as Registrar. During his service tenure, the respondent indulged into activities detrimental to the institution and such activities being the misconduct, the resolution dated 09.05.2005 came to be passed by the Trustee mandal of the petitioner University, for taking action against the respondent. The respondent was served charge-sheet dated 12.05.2005 for 21 charges. For holding inquiry into such charges, a retired District Judge was appointed as inquiry officer. Out of 21 charges, two charges were dropped and from remaining 19 charges, 15 charges were held proved against the petitioner as per the inquiry report dated 15.05.2006. The respondent was then issued show cause notice dated 20.05.2006 calling upon him to explain why major punishment under civil service appeal rules should not be imposed. After respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority the Vice Chancellor passed order dated 08.07.2006 dismissing the respondent from service. The respondent challenged the said order by filing appeal on 14.07.2006 before the Trustee Mandal of the University. The Trustee Mandal the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement by its decision dated 20.11.2006. Against said decision, the respondent preferred Appeal No.1 of 2007 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal since expressed its prima facie opinion that the Trustee mandal could not have decided the appeal, but the Executive Council should have decided the appeal, the petitioner agreed for disposal of the appeal with certain directions. The respondent thereafter preferred appeal before Executive Council on 12.11.2006. Before the Executive Council, the respondent did not raise any contention as regards the authority of the Vice Chancellor to pass order of dismissal against him or as regards the competence or formation of the Executive Council to decide the appeal. The Executive Council thereafter decided the appeal and by its order dated 08.02.2008 held that considering the charges proved against the respondent, it would not be in the interest of the petitioner university to continue the respondent in service and for the charges proved against the respondent, there could not be any other punishment except the punishment of dismissal. Thus, the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was confirmed by the Executive Council. Being aggrieved by such order of Executive Council in appeal preferred by the respondent, the respondent filed further appeal being Appeal No. 1 of 2008 before the Tribunal under Section 14(3) of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short). Before the Tribunal, though final hearing was concluded, the respondent moved amendment in the appeal with some documents which was objected to by the petitioner. However, the Tribunal allowed the amendment which was challenged by filing Special Civil Application No. 9432 of 2008 before this Court. But, thereafter, the said petition was disposed of after expunging the remarks made against the petitioner and its advocate by the Tribunal. T
