1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.119 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2007 Mr. Bare Chandrakant Rajaram, ) Age 45 years, Dhanlaxmi, ) Plot No.59, S. No.24, Pradhikaran ) Nigdi, Pune - 411 044 ) ..... Appellant. v/s 1. The Principal, ) Dr. D.Y. Patil Arts, Commerce ) and Science College, Pimpri, ) Pune - 411018 ) ) 2. The Director & Trustee, ) Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratishthan, ) Pimpari, Pune 411 018. ) ) 3. The Joint Director, ) Higher Education, Pune Region ) 17, Dr. Ambedkar Road., ) Near St. Mathew Church, ) Opp. Red Temple, Pune Camp, ) Pune - 411001. ) ) 4. The University of Pune ) through its Registrar, ) Ganeshkhind, Pune - 411007. ) ..... Respondents. ------ Mr. B.P. Apte i/b Mrs. A.N. Helekar for the appellant. Mr. S. R. Chinchalikar, G.P. for the State. Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ------ 2 CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M.KANADE, J. Judgment reserved on 12/06/2008 Judgment pronounced on 26/06/2008 JUDGMENT: ( Per V. M. Kanade, J.) 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30/03/2007 passed in Writ Petition No.497 of 2007, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. An objection was raised regarding the maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal. However, by order dated 05/03/2008, this Court declined to dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal on that ground. Thereafter, the Letters Patent Appeal was heard on merits. 2. Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:- 3. The appellant was working as full time lecturer with respondent No.1 - College. He was also a Chartered Accountant registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. A show cause notice was issued by the College, calling upon him to explain whether, being a professional Chartered Accountant, he could continue to teach as full time teacher in the College. The appellant gave reply that the Institute of Chartered Accountants has permitted him to work as full time teacher. The services of 3 the appellant were, thereafter, terminated as his explanation was not accepted and after the Government declined to reimburse the salary grants which were payable to the College. 4. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of termination, preferred an appeal before the College Tribunal. It was contended that no departmental inquiry was held before terminating him. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal which was filed by the appellant. Against this order, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition firstly on the ground that the directions which were issued by the Vice Chancellor which laid down the service conditions of the teachers under section 11(6)(b) of the Pune University Act were violated by the appellant since there was a specific bar imposed by the said directions on teachers undertaking any other employment which are likely to interfere with their professional responsibilities. Secondly, it was held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice since the appellant himself has admitted that he was carrying on profession as full time Chartered Accountant while he was also working as full time teacher and, therefore, it was not necessary for the College to hold departmental inquiry to establish this fact. 5. Mr. Apte, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the services of the appellant 4 were terminated in utter violation of statute 431 and 432 framed under the Pune University Act. It was secondly submitted that the College was aware that the appellant was a practicing Chartered Accountant since the year 1995 itself and the College had utilized his services as the practicing Chartered Accountant and, therefore, it was not open for the College to raise the said objection. Thirdly, it was submitted that the only reason mentioned in the letter dated 30/11/2005 was that the Government had declined to reimburse the salary grant of the College. He further invited our attention to the correspondence which indicated that though, initially, this particular objection was raised, by order dated 03/03/2003, the Deputy Director had intimated to the College that the workload of the appellant be restored. 6. Mr. Kanetkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - College, on the other hand, submitted that no case has been made out by the appellant to interfere with the reasoned order which was passed by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that since it was an admitted position that the appellant was working as Chartered Accountant, it was not necessary to hold departmental inquiry. 7. We are unable to accept the submissions made by Mr. Apte, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. It is an admitted position that the appellant is practicing his profession as Chartered Accountant and this 5 fact has been acknowledged by him in his reply to the show cause notice which was issued to him by the College. As such, in view of the admission, there was no question of holding a separate departmental inquiry to establish this fact. Secondly, it is also an admitted position that in the directions which are issued by the Vice Chancellor under section 11(6)(b) of the Pune University Act, full time teacher is not permitted to accept any other employment including profession which is likely to interfere with his responsibility and duty as full time teacher. In the present case, there is clear violation of the aforesaid directions and any violation of the terms and conditions of service as laid down under the statute or under the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor under section 11(6)(b) of the said Act, amounts to misconduct for which the College is entitled to impose the punishment of termination. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the College was justified in issuing the order of termination. 8. That being the position, we are of the view that no case is made out by the appellant for interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising our jurisdiction under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Appeal is dismissed. Under the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE 6 V.M. KANADE, J.