HARSHADA H. SAWANT / Amberkar (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5424 OF 2014 The Vice President, Somaiya Trust and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Dr. Pradnya d/o Gopalrao Giradkar, and Ors. .. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Lancy D’Souza a/w. Mr. K. K. Jadhav and Mr. J. K. Jadhav, Advocates for Petitioners.

 Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate appointed through legal aid a/w.

Mr. Jenish Dinesh Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

 Ms. Swetabja Mondal, Advocate i/by Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.2.

 Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.3.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : JULY 25, 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D’Souza, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Dr. Warunjikar, Advocate appointed through legal aid for Respondent No.1; Ms. Mondol, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Ms.

Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent No.3.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed by Petitioners to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal in Appeal No.34 of 2011.

3. By virtue of the impugned judgment, Tribunal has set aside order of dismissal from service imposed by Petitioners on Respondent No.1 and directed her reinstatement in alongwith further directions.

Petitioners have challenged the order on its merits.

4. If Petition fails on merits Respondent No. 1 cannot be put to a greater loss because of the omission of Petitioners. Had Petitioners reinstated her she would have joined service and submitted her voluntary retirement resignation in compliance of the impugned order itself. She was precluded from doing so by Petitioners. Though she has not challenged the order, she was admittedly precluded from filing her voluntary retirement resignation as directed. Therefore it is incorrect to argue on behalf of Petitioners at the outset that she did not submit her voluntary retirement resignation in compliance of the impugned order which she could never had, since she was not reinstated and allowed to join service.

5. The facts in the present case are in a narrow compass.

5.1. Briefly stated, Respondent No.1 was appointed as Lecturer in Zoology in June – 1992 in Petitioners' College and was confirmed as Lecturer on 20.06.1994 after completing the probation period.

5.2. Petitioners’ case against Respondent No.1 is that during tenure of her service with them until she was terminated by Petitioners in the year 2007 Respondent No.1 addressed several complaints and correspondence grieving about her placement, grades and monetary benefits due and payable to her as per her eligibility and filed complaints to that effect before the statutory Authorities leading to Petitioners dismissing her from service.

5.3. According to Petitioners on 03.06.2007, Respondent No.1 filed complaint for harassment against the then Principal of the College before the Mahila Ayog, Mumbai endorsing copy thereof to the Police Commissioner, Vice Chancellor and the Human Rights Commission.

5.4. This was followed by complaint dated 23.06.2007 to the Chairman, Women’s Cell, Kalina University, Mumbai.

5.5. According to Petitioners above complaints were false accusations and allegations which brought disrepute to the College and its Principal. Hence the Governing body of the College appointed Shri M. P. Sadekar as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the conduct of Respondent No.1.

5.6. On 07.07.2007, Enquiry Officer issued charge-sheet to Respondent No.1 levying charge of “moral turpitude” for having made false and baseless allegations against the then Principal and bringing disrepute to the College as also the Management of the College of Petitioners.

5.7. On 11.07.2007, College received a communication from the Maharashtra State Commission for Women (Mahila Ayog) for submitting report on the complaint filed by Respondent No.1. Police complaint was thereafter filed on 13.07.2007 against the then Principal by Respondent No.1 and on 14.07.2007 statement of the Princ