1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4086 OF 2008 V.N.Patil Law College } Through its Principal } Dr. Ramprasad Panda } Age : 45 Years, Occ. : Service, } R/o : N-4, CIDCO, } ..... PETITIONER/ Aurangabad. } (ORI. RESPONDENT) V E R S U S 1. Shri. S.N.Kaninde } Age : Major, Occ. : Service } Then Lecturer, } V.N.Patil Law College, } Aurangabad } Now R/o At present } Lecturer, Political Science } Elfistance College, } Mahatma Gandhi Road, } Fort, Mumbai. } 2. Registrar, } Dr. Bnabasaheb Ambedkar } Marathwada University, } University Campus, } Aurangabad. } .... RESPONDENTS 2 3. Joint Director, } Higher Education, } .... RESPONDENTS/ Aurangabad Division, } (RESPONDENT NO.1 IS Aurangabad. } ORI. COMPLAINANT) Mr. Rajendra M.Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for State. Mr. S.S.Tope, Advocate for Respondent no. 2. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 11/09/2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 26/3/2008 below Exh. ‘ C ’ passed by Respondent no. 2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned in this petition is without any reasons and cryptic and no opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioner to explain its position. It is further submitted that the resignation tendered by the respondent no. 1, has not been accepted by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 was appointed on 4/7/2003 purely on temporary basis. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid the salary of the respondent no. 1 for the period for which he has worked in the petitioner/institution. The learned counsel further submitted that prior to tendering the resignation, Respondent no. 1 has received salary. He 3 has invited my attention to page no. 41 to 67 of the compilation of Writ Petition and more particularly page no. 42 and submitted that the name of respondent no. 1 and his post appeared on page no. 42. Amount is also mentioned and respondent no. 1 has signed on revenue stamp to show that he has received the salary. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that salary is already paid to the respondent no. 1. Hence, the Committee is not right in observing that the record of the petitioner is doubtful. Learned counsel , therefore, would submit that this Writ Petition may be entertained. Learned counsel further submitted that except filing complaint, respondent no. 1 never participated before the Grievance Committee and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that there is record maintained by the College to show that every month, the Respondent no. 1 is paid and to that effect he has signed on revenue stamp that he has received salary. Learned counsel further submits that any quasi judicial authority is required to assign reasons in support of its order. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 is present and he submits that the impugned order is appropriate. The learned A.G.P. also appeared for the State. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.P. and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears 4 that the Committee has perused the record submitted by the petitioner herein and came to the conclusion that the record maintained by the petitioner mentioning therein about the payment of salary and allowances for the period from 1/7/2003 to 15/10/2004 to the respondent no. 1 appears to be doubtful. Therefore, respondent no. 2 directed the petitioner to pay the amount through Bank for which respondent no. 1 is entitled for the period from 1/7/2003 to 15/10/2004, for which he has rendered the services. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 1 has worked for the period from 1/7/2003 to 15/10/2004. The limited controversy is about whether the respondent no. 1 is paid for the period for which he has worked from 1/7/2003 to 15/10/2004. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the record maintained by the petitioner clearly indicates that the respondent no. 1 is duly paid his salary and allowances. It is also admitted position that the petitioner filed reply to the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears to me that the Committee has carefully perused the documents produced by the petitioner and has come to the definite conclusion that the said documents and the record maintained by the petitioner about payment of salary to respondent no. 1 from 1/7/2003 to 15/10/2004 appears to be doubtful. Normally, the amount is paid to the employees by the Institution through Bank. It is admitted position that the payment is not made to the respondent no. 1 5 through Bank and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, same amount is paid in cash. 6. The only limited grievance which was before the committee was about whether the respondent no. 1 was paid salary and allowances for the period from 1/7/2003 to 15/10/2004 and on careful perusal of the record maintained by the petitioner, the Committee has came to the conclusion that the said record is doubtful and petitioner should pay the respondent no. 1 through Bank. 7. In my considered view, no other reasons are necessary in support of the impugned order. The Committee has seen the record and found that same is doubtful. Under writ jurisdiction, it is not possible for this Court to go through the documents and to find out that whether record maintained by the petitioner about the payment of salary and allowances to the respondent no. 1 is doubtful or not. It appears to me that the respondent no.2 has taken a possible view on the basis of the scrutiny and verification of the record. Once is is not in dispute that the respondent no. 1 has worked for the above mentioned period, it becomes incumbent on petitioner to pay salary. 8. On careful perusal of the impugned order and reasons given therein, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on disputed question of facts by going through the record maintained by the 6 petitioner. The possible view has been taken by the respondent no. 2. The petition involves disputed question of facts. Therefore, Writ Petition is dismissed. [ S.S.SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP4086.08