WP2060-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2060 OF 2010 Mrs.Chitra Anant Salunke .. Petitioner Versus The Principal, Siddharth College of Law and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.L.Gore i/b. Kashyap S. Bhalerao for petitioner Mr.P.M.Palshikar for respondent No.3 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17th January 2011 P.C.: 1] This petition under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of Learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 20th January 2010 in Appeal No.11 of 2009. 2] The petitioner filed that appeal under section 59(1) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 challenging her removal from services by an order dated 21st May 2009 with effect from 30th May WP2060-10 2 2009. 3] It was the case of the petitioner - original appellant that she passed her LLB degree exam in the year 2000 from the Siddharth College and stood first in the college and at rank VII in the merit list of Mumbai University. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed Fellow with effect from 1st January 2001. She also completed her LLM from Mumbai University in 2002. Thereafter, she was appointed as full time Lecturer in the subject of Law with effect from 14th February 2003, firstly on probation and, thereafter, she was appointed substantively from 21st March 2003 as Assistant to Principal with effect from 2nd December 2002 until further orders. 4] The services of the petitioner were terminated by the Management on 21st August 2004. She challenged that termination by filing an appeal being Appeal No.21 of 2004 in the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated 4th November 2004 set aside the said termination on two grounds viz., that there was no case made out of WP2060-10 3 termination being because of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner and one month's pay in lieu of notice was not paid. Therefore, she was reinstated in the college. 5] The petitioner was selected for the Award of Scholarship under the National Scholarship Scheme of India on the basis of LLB degree. The Mumbai University also awarded her with Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Birth Cententenary Award for securing highest marks in LLB degree. The petitioner was also selected for Rashtriya Sanman Award by National Education and Human Resource Development Organisation. 6] The case of the petitioner through out has been that because of her exemplary performance and achievements, the In-charge Principal of Siddharth College of Law and one Professor V.B.Tiwari, a part time Lecturer lodged a false complaint against her alleging that her B.A.degree is bogus. She, therefore, filed a complaint of defamation against Mr.Tiwari which is still pending. It is then contended that the WP2060-10 4 said Tiwari made a complaint to the University of Mumbai and the University called upon the petitioner to forward her appointment letter and her B.A. degree certificate so also LLB and LLM degree certificates. It is stated that these documents were forwarded because the petitioner was awaiting approval from the University for her appointment. It is alleged that thereafter, a complaint was made to the Crime Branch, Mumbai in connection with bogus degree certificate of the petitioner and the Inspector, Crime Branch made enquiries from Kakatia University, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh (for short Kakatia University) regarding acquisition of BA degree by the petitioner from the said University. However, a reply in the negative was received by the Inspector which stated that there was no candidate by the name of petitioner who appeared for BA exam in the year 1988-89, when she claims to have obtained the degree. 7] In the meanwhile, the Management sent a reply to the Mumbai University withdrawing the report of her passing of BA examination which was sent earlier to the Mumbai University. The Mumbai WP2060-10 5 University sent two Member Committee to enquire the fact of petitioner's BA degree with the said Kakatia University and the Two Member Committee personally visited the said University and submitted a report which stated that there was no candidate bearing name of petitioner, appearing for the examination 8] It is alleged in the appeal as well as reiterated before me that even though the management was not inclined to proceed against the petitioner, a writ petition was filed in this court by the Principal, Siddharth College and an order came to be made thereon directing enquiry to be held. Two Enquiry Officers were appointed to hold enquiry. However, that enquiry was not completed. Thereafter, a retired Judge of this Court was also appointed as Enquiry Officer and for some reason that enquiry, though concluded, no action could be taken. It was stated that a fresh enquiry would be held and accordingly the present enquiry officer was appointed who served a charge sheet of allegations and held an enquiry. He submitted his report to the Authorities which is dated 23rd March 2009 WP2060-10 6 recommending the removal of the petitioner from service. 9] Accordingly, the order of removal has been passed on 21st May 2009 which came to be challenged before the Tribunal. 10] The only contention raised by Mr.Gore before me is that the petitioner was not given enough and proper opportunity to defend herself. If complete opportunity had been given in accordance with the principles of natural justice to defend herself, she would have been able to satisfy the authorities so also the Presiding Officer, that she is a graduate from the Kakatia University. She had produced the original document/ degree certificate at the time of her appointment and it is true that the same was returned to her. However, taking advantage of the fact that the same was misplaced later on, a false complaint was lodged and enquiry was held. It is submitted that it is victimisation of the petitioner and mainly because of her achievements and her strained relations with colleague professors and the then Principal. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the action WP2060-10 7 taken is malafide and should have been set aside by the Tribunal. 11] With a view to satisfy myself about the finding recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, particularly at page 12 of the impugned order, on the last occasion I had directed the Registrar of the Tribunal Registry to produce the original record. Accordingly, the original record has been produced for my perusal. Even the Counsel appearing for petitioner has a copy of this original record. With his assistance I have perused the same. Since this concerns the removal of the petitioner from the services and particularly as a full time teacher of Law at Siddharth College, Mumbai, I have heard Mr.Gore, learned Counsel for petitioner at some length and with his assistance perused the petition and all annexures to it. 12] The Enquiry Officer in his report has made detailed reference to the written statement of the petitioner and after making a reference to the same in paras 12 and 13, in para 14 he observed thus:- WP2060-10 8 “14. Except a statement by the delinquent there is no document and evidence to show that Smt.Salunke ever appeared for B.A degree examination of Kakatiya University, Warangal in 1988. The letter from Kakatiya University dated 28th August 2006 belies her statement that she appeared for the said examination. It is relevant to note that in her letter dated 31/01/2005 addressed to Registrar, Kakatiya University she has clearly mentioned that she was a bonafide student of Kakatiya University and she had cleared her B.A.degree (External) in 1988 and that a degree certificate was issued and received by her from Progressive Classes, Thane West through which she appeared for the said examination. She requested the Registrar to issue a duplicate B.A degree certificate. This letter clearly shows that the B.A degree certificate was issued and received by her from Progressive Classes. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that she tried to contact the Progressive Classes, Thane WP2060-10 9 West to get her Roll Number or any other record relating to her B.A degree certificate. It appears that she has not even approached the Progressive Classes to get some information regarding her B.A degree certificate. In this letter she has not stated that the degree certificate was issued by Kakatiya University and received by her from Progressive Classes. She clearly mentions that the B.A degree certificate was issued and received by her from Progressive Classes. She has relied upon some correspondence relating to her interview for the post of full-time teacher when she had submitted original certificates. It may be that she produced her B.A degree certificate at that time but it cannot be said that it was not a bogus certificate in view of the fact that Kakatiya University has clearly pointed out that there was no entry that Chitra Anant Salunke ever appeared for B.A degree examination in 1988. The totality of the circumstances would lead to an irresistible inference that the B.A degree certificate which has been been produced by the WP2060-10 10 delinquent was not a true and valid certificate issued by Kakatiya University, Warangal. My view is confirmed not only by the Kakatiya University but also by the Principal Secretary to the Govt of Andhra Pradesh vide his letter dated 07/08/2006 wherein it is mentioned “that the copy of the Provisional Certificate is not in the style and format of Kakatiya University and the Certificate was not issued by them.” Therefore in B.A degree certificate which has been produced appears to be bogus. Till today the delinquent has not produced the reply which she got from the Kakatiya University when she applied for a duplicate copy. On the contrary there are letters from Kakatiya University which clearly show that Chitra Anant Salunke has not passed a B.A degree from that University. It is not clearly shown by the delinquent as to why she cannot produce some reliable evidence to show that she ever appeared for B.A degree examination held by Kakatiya University. She has not brought even evidence from Progressive Classes, Thane WP2060-10 11 West that she was an external student enrolled by them and she had ever appeared for the examination.” 13] When these are the findings of the Enquiry Officer, naturally during the course of arguments, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal called upon the petitioner to produce the duplicate degree certificate of BA examiantion but she was unable to produce the same even before the Tribunal. 14] In this behalf, the findings recorded by learned Presiding Officer at para 12 of his judgement and order would show that despite sufficient opportunity being given to the petitioner to produce duplicate degree certificate, she was unable to produce the same. From the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it was clear that she appeared as an external student / candidate for the said BA exam at Kakatia University. She appeared through a private coaching class at Thane and she gave the name of that coaching class as well. Learned Enquiry Officer, therefore, called upon the petitioner to produce WP2060-10 12 anything from the said Institute viz., Progressive Class, Thane that she was enrolled as external student and she appeared for examination. Even that proof could not be produced by the petitioner. 15] In such circumstances, I do not see any substance in the contention of Mr.Gore that enough opportunity was not given to the petitioner. As rightly observed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal that on two occasions petitioner was called upon to produce degree certificate but she was unable to produce the same. The finding, therefore, that she did not have BA certificate cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. The Tribunal has found that while taking admission for LLB in respondent No.1 the petitioner produced the original certificate through Vivekanand College of Arts and Commerce but this was found to be bogus. 16] In para 15 of the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer has dealt with the argument of the petitioner which is reiterated before me viz., lack of sufficient opportunity to prove her innocence. WP2060-10 13 Learned Presiding Officer has held as to how petitioner stayed away from the enquiry on several occasions and his findings in paras 15 and 16 are material enough. 17] In such circumstances and finding that a teacher of law has gone to the extent of producing bogus documents to obtain employment, allowing her to continue to teach law students would definitely have an adverse impact on the educational atmosphere prevailing in the Institution which is stated to have been established by none other than Bharat Ratna Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar. 18] In these circumstances, permitting her to pollute the atmosphere further and by making false allegations against her colleagues was reason enough to put an end to her service. Despite this drastic step of the management, she was repeatedly called upon to produce documents even by the Enquiry Officer, who has been a retired Judge of City Civil Court. In the course of arguments before me, the petitioner has gone to the extent of making allegations even against WP2060-10 14 the Inquiry Officers. Even those allegations have been found to be without any substance by the Tribunal. 19] In the aforementioned circumstances, I am of the opinion that no error apparent on the face of record or perversity is disclosed in the order of the Tribunal and it justified in dismissing petitioner's appeal and upholding her removal from service. Resultantly, petition fails and it is summarily dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)