Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2169
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Manjusha Deshpande, J
Shram Sadhana Bombay Trust – Appellant
Versus
Shri. Chandrakant Ramdas Joshi – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10634 of 2018 | Civil Application No. 2359 of 2024 | Writ Petition No. 10631 of 2018 | Civil Application No. 2358 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. P. V. Barde, Senior Advocate Mr. A. G. Talhar
For the Respondents: Mr. A. R. Syed
A disciplinary inquiry's procedural irregularities and lack of evidence can render dismissal disproportionate, promoting reinstatement with back wages as the equitable remedy.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 60 - Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984 - Employment law - The college tribunal's order of reinstatement of permanent employees was upheld after finding the disciplinary inquiry vitiated due to a lack of evidence and procedural irregularities, leading to a disproportionate dismissal - Dismissal was deemed a result of a vindictive approach for engaging in legal actions regarding salary disputes.(Paras 13, 15, 30, 49, 72).
(B) Natural Justice - The process was found to have failed fundamental principles of natural justice, rendering the penalties subjectively disproportionate and unfair, violating standard codes. (Paras 54-56).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the Tribunal's reinstatement orders, insisting that the employees had engaged in misconduct and challenged their disciplinary process, alleging that actions were taken in retaliation for raising salary-related grievances.
Findings of Court:
Employment reinstatement was mandated with back wages due to a lack of substantial evidence supporting dismissal.
Issues: Key concerns revolved around the powers of the appellate body to review evidence from a disciplinary inquiry and the validity of the penalties imposed based on procedural failures.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate tribunal had the right to reassess the inquiry evidence as allowed under the Maharashtra Universities Act; however, it found the penalties disproportional based on insufficient evidence of misconduct.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed; reinstatement upholding the Tribunal's order was affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions challenge tribunal's reinstatement order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. respondents contest dismissals on multiple legal grounds. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. tribunal's authority to reassess evidence acknowledged. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. charges against respondents not substantiated by evidence. (Para 17 , 36 , 39 , 41) |
| 5. protests by employees not grounds for misconduct. (Para 42 , 44 , 46 , 48) |
| 6. presiding officer's review upheld; dismissal deemed disproportionate. (Para 60 , 62) |
| 7. petitions dismissed; interim relief context acknowledged. (Para 75 , 76 , 78) |
COMMON JUDGMENT :
1. In these two writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the common judgment and order dated 22.12.2017 passed in Appeal No. NMU-02/2009 and NMU-03/2009 respectively by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Trust registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act , 1860 and Maharashtra Public Trust Act , 1961. Petitioner No. 2 is the Engineering College run by the petitioner No. 1 Trust. The respondents in respective appeals were permanent employees of the petitioner No. 2 College, appointed as Laboratory Technician and Laboratory Attendant respectively.
3. The respective respondents had approached the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “College Tribunal”) against the order of termination with a prayer for reinstatement with back-wages. Their appeals were allowed by the College Tribunal vide common judgment and order dated 22.12.2017, directing reinstatement with 100% back-wages.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the College Tribunal, the petitioners who are the employer of the respondents have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.
5. When the matter was heard by this Court on 06.12.2018, this Court has granted ‘Rule’ and refused to grant stay to the order of reinstatement. The petitioners were directed to permit the respondent to join the services w.e.f. 02.01.2019. So far as the back- wages are concerned, this Court has directed the petitioners to deposit 50% of back-wages by calculating it after taking into consideration various Government Resolutions within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of the order. The stay to the back- wages was made subject to deposit of 50% of back-wages.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2018, passed by this Court, the petitioners had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after hearing the respective parties, has been pleased to modify the order passed by this Court granting stay to the order of reinstatement of the respondents pending the disposal of writ petition. The petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards back-wages payable to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of order, in addition to the amount which was already directed to be deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 29.04.2019. The respondents were granted liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which was made subject to the final disposal of the pending writ petitions and the writ petitions were expedited. In terms of the modified order, the Civil Appeals No. 1011 of 2021 and 1012 of 2021 have been disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 19.03.2021. Facts in Appeal No. NMU-02/2009 filed by appellant Shri. Vijay Govind Nagpure :-
7. The respondent Vijay Nagpure was appointed as Laboratory Technician in the College on 06.10.1992. His service record was satisfactory and unblemished. The respondent alongwith other employees had filed Writ Petition No. 1420 of 2002, before this Court against the petitioners demanding salary as per the recommendations of the 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. It was the contention of the respondent that due to his participation in such activities, the Petitioners / Management was enraged and consequently, the
