WP/1399/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1399 OF 2010 Ashok S. Khandelwal ... Petitioner V/s. Anjuman-I-Islam’s Akbar Peerbhoy College of Education, Navi Mumbai and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. C.R. Sadasivam for the Petitioner. Mr. A.G. Kothari for the Respondents. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7 TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 25th March, 2009 passed in Appeal No.75 of 2008 by the University and College Tribunal at Mumbai, (for short “the Tribunal”). The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are : (i). that no opportunity or in any event adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself at the enquiry; WP/1399/2010 2 (ii). that the Tribunal has not re- appreciated the evidence as required by the Appellate Court. 2. The charges levelled against the petitioner were that : (a). he had behaved in a rude and disorderly manner while interacting with his colleagues including the lady teaching staff; (b). that he had disobeyed the orders of the Acting Principal in December, 2005 which led to disbursement of the salary of the staff for the month of December, 2005 only on 6th January, 2006. (c). that the petitioner had created problems just prior to the University Examinations held in April, 2006. WP/1399/2010 3 (d). that the petitioner intimidated a lady lecturer, namely Mrs. Hasan, by shouting at her in a rude, disorderly, belligerent manner and demanding that he should be permitted to inspect her bag by threatening her with arrest; (e). that in June, 2006, he accosted Mrs. Hasan threatening to lodge complaints against her through some students; (f). that the petitioner had gone to the residence of Mrs. Hasan and had repeatedly threatened her; (g). that he had forcibly entered Mrs. Hasan’s residence at 9:00 p.m. on 4th September, 2006 and had later obstructed the entry of Mrs. Hasan into her own home and had assaulted her violently on her face; WP/1399/2010 4 (h). that the Management had received several complaints against the petitioner from other employees; (i). that a student had complained that he had misbehaved and threatened the students by using uncivilized language and by making inflammatory statements against a particular community. 3. The petitioner was handed over the statements recorded at a preliminary enquiry when the Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him. He was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and he has in fact done so. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that every opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses of the Management. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that certain questions which were of a personal nature were disallowed and that this action on the part of the Enquiry Officer could not be said to be such as would be denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. WP/1399/2010 5 4. The Tribunal has then recorded its conclusion after perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer and the evidence led before it, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse. Considering the gravity of the misconduct which was established against the petitioner, the Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal. 5. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal has considered the material on record before it and has upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer as they were not perverse. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the Tribunal requiring interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. There is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal. 6. The Writ Petition is rejected.