1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No.656 of 1999 [decided] [Manohar Ramchandra Gavande Vs. Presiding Officer, University & College Tribunal & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. V.V. Bower, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 4. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 23rd September, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. As per our order dated 31st July, 2009, the Letters Patent Appeal was directed to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission after noticing that though respondent-Management was served, it has chosen not to respond. Thereafter, matter was listed before this Court, and on two occasions, time was given to 2 Management to file its reply. No reply has been filed. Today again, time is being sought to file reply. We have rejected the request. 3. The facts show that appellant applied in response to advertisement for being selected as a Principal, and Selection Committee interviewed him on 16th November, 1996. He was then appointed as per order dated 19th November, 1996 on probation of two years. By impugned order dated 19th September, 1998, he is sought to be reverted by alleging that his performance was unsatisfactory, and though several opportunities were given to him, he did not change himself. He was, therefore, reverted to his original post, i.e., the post of Lecturer on which he was working with the same Management prior to his selection as a Principal. The order of reversion mentions Resolution of the Ad Hoc Committee dated 13th September, 1998. After this reversion, the appellant approached College Tribunal and that reversion has been upheld. 4. Adv. Mr. Parchure, in this background, contends that petitioner was not promoted as a Principal, but was appointed as such and hence there could not have been any reversion. He further contends that the impugned order refers to Resolution of Ad Hoc Committee dated 13th September, 1998, and said Resolution clearly casts a stigma upon appellant. He contends that before said reversion, there was a Show-cause- 3 Notice dated 2nd September, 1998, wherein again allegations of misconduct were levelled against appellant by President of Ad Hoc Committee. He has invited our attention to Judgment delivered by Asstt. Charity Commissioner in two enquiries on 13th December, 1997, where in Para 31, Ad Hoc Committee of five persons came to be appointed. As per the rider imposed, Committee could not suspend, remove, dismiss any teaching/non- teaching staff. He contends that thus the imperssibility of reversion of appellant, the fact that a stigma was being cast upon him, whether a Departmental Enquiry was essential and absence of power with Ad Hoc Committee to remove him from the post of Principal are the aspects which are not gone into by the College Tribunal or the learned Single Judge. 5. Adv. Mr. Bower for respondent no.2- Management has attempted to support the impugned order by showing that the appellant was appointed on probation only and hence his reversion does not constitute a punishment and as such there is no question of any stigma being cast upon him. He has taken us through the order of College Tribunal to substantiate his contention. 6. After hearing parties, we find that the appellant was not promoted, but was selected in open selection process along with outsiders, and was appointed as the Principal on probation for 4 a period of two years, with the result, he could not have been reverted as a Lecturer by the impugned order. Similarly, the order of Asstt. Charity Commissioner dated 13th December, 1997 does not authorize Ad Hoc Committee to remove or dismiss any member of teaching staff. Further the order of reversion dated 19th September, 1998 expressly mentions the resolution of Ad Hoc Committee and perusal of said resolution clearly shows that it casts a stigma upon appellant. The reasons therein are like [a] non-acceptance of medical leave application of a senior-most Professor and returning it, [b] refusal of permission to the said person to join his duties, [c] deducting the wage increase from the salary of Shri Chaudhary, [d] withholding his wage hike, [e] dealing with amount of Rs. 6,67,000-00 received as grants from the University Grants Commission without taking members of Committee into confidence and without calling for tenders, [f] not to hold necessary meetings, and [g] non-drawal of salary of Prof. Shri Pise and also reducing pay-scale of Librarian  Shri Kapse. Thus, as laid down by Hon ble Apex Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose [National  AIR 1999 SC 983], the order casts a stigma on probationer. 7. It appears that explanation of appellant was called for on 2nd September, 1998, and on 13th September, 1998, the Ad Hoc Committee has passed the resolution which was 5 implemented on 19th September, 1998. All this has been done without holding any Departmental Enquiry and without giving any formal charge- sheet to the appellant. The stigma cast upon the appellant is, thus, apparent. The absence of powr to remove employee in Ad Hoc Body is not in dispute. 8. In appeal before College Tribunal, appellant questioned his termination/removal from the post of Principal. The Writ Petition before learned Single Judge was under Articles 226 and 227 with a prayer to call for records and to issue appropriate writ/order or direction to quash and set aside Judgment dated 3rd February, 1999 of respondent no.1-College Tribunal and order of reversion/termination dated 19th September, 1998. A passing reference that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is not warranted and, therefore, not determinative of jurisdiction invoked by appellant in the matter. 9. We find that these aspects are not considered either by the College Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to uphold the impugned order dated 19th September, 1998. The said order of reversion is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Consequentially, orders in challenge delivered by College Tribunal and learned Single Judge are also quashed and set aside. Appellant 6 is reinstated back as a Principal with immediate effect. Management is at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law for alleged misconducts. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|