1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 2009 Sanjay s/o madhukar Baviskar .. PETITIONER VERSUS North Maharashtra University Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.P. Tiwari, Advocate holding for Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Petitioner was serving as driver with the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon. Departmental enquiry was conducted by the university authority against the petitioner in respect of mis-conduct alleged to have been practiced by the employee and after holding appropriate enquiry and after extending opportunity of hearing to the employee, it is found that the charges levelled against the employee are proved and as such, the services of the petitioner / employee came to be terminated. The order was challenged before the college tribunal by presenting appeal bearing no. 2 NMU-4/2006 by the employee. The college tribunal after considering the rival contentions found that the appeal is without any substance and as such dismissed the same. 2 I have perused the report of the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner as well as order passed by the college tribunal. The charges levelled against the employee are quite grave in nature. The employee at the relevant time was serving as driver with the university and he was entrusted with the job of collecting the sealed packets of answer sheets from different centers and reach the same to the university. It was found that the sealed packets of answer sheets written by third year M.B.B.S. students were tampered and the seals on the bundles of answer sheets were found to be different than the seals which are usually put by the center-in- charge while packing the answer sheets. It was also found that the log book which was maintained by driver contain fabricated and inaccurate entries. The original log book also does not appear to have been produced before the appellate authority for verification. During the course of enquiry it transpired that after collection of the bundles containing answer sheets of third year M.B.B.S. students, those were taken at different place and the answer sheets were removed from the bundles and were provided to the 3 students appearing for the examination. The concerned students thereafter wrote additional answers in the answer sheets. After securing answer sheets from the students after making additions therein, the bundles containing answer sheets were again re-packed and different seal was put thereon. Alongwith the petitioner, two other employees were also proceeded with in departmental enquiry. The students who have written additional answers after securing the answer sheets from the petitioner and other two employees were also called. After scrutiny of the relevant material, it was found that the students have infact written additional answers in the answer sheets after securing them from the petitioner and other two employees. Thus, it was found during enquiry that the petitioner and other two employees of the university have provided answer sheets from the bundles collected by the petitioner to students so as to facilitate them to write additional answers. Thus, the petitioner and other two employees have committed mal-practice in respect of examination. 3 It was also found that the petitioner was prosecuted in criminal case bearing RCC no. 118/2006 for commission of offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 473, 409 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner herein is held guilty for commission of offences punishable 4 under section 465 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. He is also held guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and is further directed to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. It is stated that as against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, appeal is presented by the petitioner and the same is pending. Presentation of appeal raising exception to the order of conviction and sentence is different aspect and is not material for determining the validity and correctness of orders passed in the departmental enquiry. It is found that after holding due enquiry, the enquiry committee found the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him. The tribunal has also found that there is no error committed by the enquiry officer while conducting departmental enquiry. There is no allegation that the principles of natural justice are violated or that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to put up his case before the enquiry officer. The penalty imposed against the petitioner at conclusuion of departmental proceedings cannot be said to be dis- proportionate with the charges levelled against him. Charges levelled against the petitioner are quite grave in nature. In this view of the matter, within limited scope for causing interference in departmental proceedings, 5 I do not feel that there is any reason to entertain challenge raised in the petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp3749.09.odt