wp2540.98.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2540 OF 1998 Shri B.S. Abhyankar ....Petitioner. Vs. The Parle Tilak Vidyalaya & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. L.M. Nerlekar for the Petitioner. Mr. R.K. Rele , Sr. Counsel with Mr. M.V. Joglekar with Mr. V.N. Tayade i/by Mr. Piyush Shah for the Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 20th April, 2010 P.C.: Called out from final hearing board. 1 The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23rd January, 1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Mumbai whereby, his appeal against the order of termination dated 03/08/1993 was dismissed. 2 In the present case, the basic charges levelled against the Petitioner are stale, quite vague and under without material. The charges/ statement as alleged on 25th January, 1993 the incidents were referred for the period from 1989 to 1992, though some of the charges referred to the incident of 1992. The allegations contacting the students, without any material. The allegations of rude behaviour and abuses in the present facts and circumstances, not proved satisfactorily also. But, the Tribunal in spite of wp2540.98.sxw 2 above vagueness and uncleared allegations, maintained the order of termination after remand by the High Court. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strongly relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in (1986) 3 S.C.C. 454, Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. The Apex Court has observed that the Departmental Inquiry, vitiated the charges so levelled as that was in non- compliance of the principle of natural justice and therefore, the order of removal from service was invalid. 4 This Court in Miraj Taluka Girni Kamgar Sangh Vs. Manager, Shree Gajanan Weaving Mills and Ors., (1992) II LLJ 686 BOM., while considering the similar situation, has observed that the charge sheet served on the Petitioner was vague and therefore, as was not given proper opportunity to effectively defend himself and thereby disposed of the Petition on the same contention and ordered reinstatement with the continuity and back wages. 5 In the present Petition, apart from above, the Petitioner has filed additional affidavits on 31st March, 2010 and 15th April, 2010, whereby agreed to give up the back wages as he has already been completed age of superannuation on 30th November, 2007. The Petition is of the year 1998. The order of termination was of 3rd August, 1993. The Petitioner also agreed that he will not raise any monetary claim against the Respondent at any time in future. 6 In view of above, I am inclined to allow this Petition as under:- wp2540.98.sxw 3 (a) The order of termination, as well as, the impugned order dated 23/01/1998, is quashed and set aside. However, the Petitioner is entitled for all the benefits by providing notional increments for the purpose of calculation of pension with continuity of service and all the consequential benefits covering the pension, gratuity etc. by treating him to be in employment upto 30th November, 2007. (b) It is made clear that in view of above affidavits, the Petitioner is not entitled for any back wages except the retirement and consequential benefits, as observed above, in view of quashing of the order of termination and the impugned order. It is also made clear that there shall not be any recovery of amount already paid to the Petitioner. (c) It is made clear that the Respondent will complete all the necessary formalities as requisite and required in accordance with law enabling the Petitioner to get the service benefits, as recorded above. (d) The Petition is accordingly disposed of no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)