1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4011 OF 1994 Amrutlal s/o Shantilal Shah, Age-46 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Duwarkadhish Mandir Block, Gujrath Galli, Chopda, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Mahatma Gandhi Taluka Shikshan Mandal, Chopda, Dist-Jalgaon, (Through its President), 2) Arts, Science & Commerce College Chopda, Dist-Jalgaon, (Through its Principal), 3) Disciplinary Committee, Through its President, Mahatma Gandhi Taluka Shikshan Mandal, Chopda, Dist-Jalgaon, 4) North Maharashtra University, Post Box No.80, Jalgaon 425 001 (Through its Vice Chancellor), 5) The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri. Ajay Deshpande Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. B.R. Warma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. A.B. Girase Advocate for Respondent No.4. Shri. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. RESERVED ON : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PRONOUNCED ON : 4TH OCTOBER, 2010. JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. The Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the academic year 1970-1971 with Respondent No. 2 College, which is affiliated to Respondent No.4 University. The Petitioner later-on, was promoted as Assistant Professor in the year 1972-1973. He was Head of the Department of Physics since the year 1974. He was also appointed as Associated Vice Principal from 3rd October, 1985 for a period of one year. 2. The Petitioner wrote a 'personal and 3 confidential communication' dated 24th August, 1993 to the Respondent No.4 University to enquire into the results of the College students in Physics subject and other deficiencies in the functioning of the College. It seems that the Petitioner was disturbed on the appointment of one Shri. S.G. Gujrathi as Member of Board of Studies in Physics, who was working in the subject of Electronic Science. The Petitioner's grievance is that the Respondent No.4 forwarded copy of the said letter to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and sought their explanation with regard to the contents of the letter. On receipt of the said communication from the University, the Respondent No.2 College vide communication dated 29th September, 1993 directed the Petitioner to hand- over the charge of Head of Department of Physics to one Mr. A.V. Salunkhe. The Petitioner thereafter, handed over the charge. An explanation was called from the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 with regard to his 'personal and confidential communication' to the University. A show cause 4 notice was issued as to why the disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for having defamed the College and the Management. The Petitioner contends in his Petition that he submitted the explanation with regard to the communication made by him to the University. It was the contention of the Petitioner that he did not make any false complaint which would defame the College and the Management. The Respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the explanation, therefore the Petitioner was directed to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 7th October, 1993 for giving explanation with regard to the communication. The Petitioner remained present before the Disciplinary Committee on 7th October, 1993. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Management put pressure on the Petitioner and obtained signature on the paper in the shape of confession made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was left with no choice than to put his signature. The Petitioner annexed the said communication and the statement to the Petition. 5 3. The Petitioner submits that the explanation of the Petitioner was forwarded by the College Authorities to the University. The Registrar of the University informed to the Petitioner that the allegations were made with a mala-fide intention. According to the Petitioner, a picture was created that as Mr. Gujrathi was made a Member of Board of Studies, the Petitioner was hurt and displeased and therefore he resorted to make certain allegations against the functioning of the Management and the College Authorities. The Petitioner was served with a communication dated 6th December, 1993 stating therein that prima facie the Petitioner defamed the Principal, the College, Management and the University by his communication dated 24th August, 1993. The explanation was sought as to why the Petitioner should not be punished. The Petitioner was called upon to produce proof in support of his allegations by 8th January, 1994. 6 4. The Petitioner contends that he intimated to the University with an intention to safeguard the interest of the educational atmosphere and in the interest of students and the educational standards; but it was his misfortune that the University and the College Authorities misunderstood the Petitioner and blamed him for making allegations. The Petitioner made representations/ communications to the Authorities from time to time. The Petitioner prayed for intervention of the University. The Petitioner was not supplied with the necessary documents by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. As the Petitioner had to put up his case, he sought some time to file explanation after consulting a legal practitioner. The representation thereafter was submitted on 15th January, 1994. By an order dated 2nd February, 1994 the Respondent No.2 communicated the Petitioner that the Executive Committee of Respondent No.1 approved the action proposed by the Disciplinary Committee and necessary action was being taken. The extract of the resolution 7 passed by the Executive Committee of the Respondent No.1 in its meeting dated 24th January, 1994 is placed on record at Exhibit S. 5. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution and the decision taken by the Management to with-hold his three increments with cumulative effect, which would affect the Petitioner's service career and even the pensionary benefits. The Petitioner submitted that the action taken was harsh, undesirable and unreasonable. 6. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed affidavit in reply. They refuted the allegations made against them by the Petitioner. It was the case of the deponents that in accordance with law, Statutes made by the University, appropriate action was taken and the minor punishment was imposed on the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter served for more than 13 years with the College, which itself would show that the 8 Petitioner was not meted out with any unreasonable or harsh treatment with vengeance by the Authorities later-on. In the light of the fact that the Petitioner had unnecessarily made baseless allegations against the Management, to maintain discipline strict action was taken. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the action taken by the Management against the Petitioner. 7. Shri. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in fact in the light of the Statutes framed by the University, penalty imposed on the Petitioner would fall in the category of major punishments. The procedure followed to enquire into the matter, was not fair and transparent. The Petitioner retired in the year 2007 and after serving the Management sincerely for number of years, the Petitioner was punished with a harsh order for writing confidential communication to the University. The learned counsel for the Petitioner 9 drew our attention to the number of communications and correspondence which took place between the parties. The counsel submitted that to maintain the best educational standard, the Petitioner had written communication to the University. It was confidential one. There was no question of Management getting defamed. The Management was unnecessarily sensitive and imposed punishment, which not only affected the Petitioner financially, but had lowered down the image and prestige of the Petitioner, who had discharged duties with the best of his abilities. 8. Shri. Warma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the Petitioner made allegations against the functioning of the Management and the College Authorities without there being any basis or without verifying the facts. The learned counsel placed heavy reliance on Exhibit R-3, a statement made by the Petitioner on 7th October, 1993; which itself shows that the Petitioner deviated from his 10 earlier stand and had stated, that on many issues he did not have any proof in respect of some of the allegations and he had made certain allegations in respect of some of the students on oral information received by him. Not only this, the Petitioner also stated that he had committed mistake and therefore he felt sorry, for the same. In the submissions of the counsel, the Petitioner was displeased as one Mr. Gujrathi was appointed as Member of Board of Studies. The counsel submitted that the Petitioner had alternate remedy, which he did not avail of. As the Management thought that they were defamed before the University Authorities and other Authorities, for maintaining discipline, the Management had no other option but to initiate disciplinary action against the Petitioner. Lenient view was taken by the Management and minor penalty was imposed in accordance with Statute 432 of University of Poona Statutes; which cannot be termed to be unreasonable. The Petitioner was fairly treated and was accorded reasonable opportunity to put up 11 his defence, which the Petitioner had availed of. 9. Shri. Girase, learned counsel appearing for University supported the act of the Management. The learned counsel supported the act of the University in forwarding the communication received, to the College Authorities. The counsel submits that the principles of natural justice were followed and in fact the Petitioner confessed that he committed mistake. The counsel therefore, submitted that the Management had accordingly passed an appropriate order. 10. We considered the record placed before us, the communications/ representations made, the material in respect of conduct of enquiry, the resolutions passed by the Management, appearing in the Proceeding Book. 11. From the statements made by the Petitioner before the Disciplinary Committee on 7th October 1993, we find that the Petitioner 12 ought to have taken abundant precaution and verified facts before making allegations in respect of passing percentage of the students and other allegations. It seems that the Petitioner was disturbed when one Mr. Gujrathi was appointed as Member of the Board of Studies in Physics. But the Petitioner stated that he did not make the communication to the University on that count. The Petitioner clearly stated that he felt sorry about the communication. The Petitioner felt that he was capable enough for appointment on a deserving post on which Mr. Gujrathi was appointed. 12. We find that the Management had provided appropriate opportunity to the Petitioner to put up his case and accordingly the Petitioner filed reply and the same was considered by the Disciplinary Committee. The Management after considering the case in its entirety, resolved to with-hold three increments of the Petitioner. It is true that the imposed punishment was to affect future salary and pensionary benefits of the 13 Petitioner. In the light of the statements made by the Petitioner before the Disciplinary Authorities, the Management in its meeting, considered the issue and by a resolution, decided to impose punishment for with-holding increments for the year 1994, 1995 and 1996. From the facts of the case and the stand adopted by the Management and the University, we find that the issue basically relates to the maintenance of the internal discipline of the College. The Management after verifying the allegations made, more particularly in the light of the explanation given by the Petitioner, was convinced that the Petitioner had over-stepped his brief and had made allegations, which had certainly shaken image of the Management before the University Authorities, College Authorities and the staff. In the strict sense, the plea of defamation of the Management may not be accepted, but it cannot be said that the Management ought to have simply neglected the allegations made against the functioning of the College and governance of the 14 Management, by the Petitioner addressed to the University. 13. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the facts of the case, we would not interfere in the view adopted by the Management in respect of the disciplinary action to be taken against the Petitioner. The Management decided to punish the Petitioner by awarding punishment of with-holding increments for three years, having future effect on the salary and pensionary benefits of the Petitioner. 14. We find that the Petitioner served the Institution since the year 1970-1971 and retired in the year 2007. Except the instance of impugned communication made by the Petitioner to the University, nothing is brought on record to show that the conduct of the Petitioner as a Professor or a person was blemish or objectionable. It is a matter of fact that the Petitioner served the 15 Institution even after suffering punishment, for near about fourteen years. The Petitioner accepted his mistake before the Disciplinary Committee and in fact said that he felt sorry about whatever happened. 15. In these peculiar facts of the case, we uphold the decision of the Management to impose punishment for the unnecessary allegations made by the Petitioner to the University and the communications. At the same time, we find that the imposition of punishment of with-holding three increments sounds little harsh. In the facts of the case we find that interference in respect of quantum of punishment awarded against the Petitioner is required. 16. The impugned order of punishment, with- holding three increments is modified to with- holding of one increment, which in the facts of the case is just, proper and reasonable. With this modification, impugned order passed by the 16 Management is confirmed. . Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT10/wp4011.94