1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 70/2010 Dr.Dnyaneshwar Shamrao Kadhao ..vs.. Gondia Education Society & another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri R.S. Sundaram, advocate for petitioner Shri Z.A. Haq, & A.S. Agrawal, advocate for respondent no.1 & 2. CORAM:S.A.BOBDE & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 7 th January, 2010 The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondents placing him under suspension pending decision on a departmental enquiry and upon issue of a show cause notice. The respondent college where the petitioner was employed as a Full Time Lecturer in History at a Degree College Level, noticed discrepancies in the service record of petitioner, which according to the management had a serious effect on the standard of teaching and the discipline in the college. According to the college, the petitioner had resorted to absenteeism on the ground that he was functioning as a Dean and that the petitioner had not submitted the requisite certificates which required him to remain absent for carrying out the 2 functions of the Dean. Apparently the certificate submitted by him, did not show the timings of the meetings which he said to have attended as a Dean. Further according to the respondent college the petitioner has not engaged the classes in the subject of History and has not submitted his attendance record, inspite of the college having rescheduled the entire time table of the classes to enable him to engage his classes without any difficulty. Further that, the petitioner has not submitted the attendance register inspite of several requests from the college and has also not used a biometric advise for recording his attendance. In addition, the petitioner has been called upon to give explanation about why there was falsification and tampering of the records of the students for the session 2008-2009 for B.A. IInd and IIIrd year Degree Course. As stated earlier, the respondent college has issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to give explanation for all the aforesaid acts which in the opinion of the college have serious effect on the academic standard of teaching and overall discipline of the college. 3 Pending reply to the show cause notice and the proposed disciplinary enquiry the college has considered it proper to suspend the petitioner from services. Shri Sundaram, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension is in fact by way of punishment imposed on the petitioner under Rule 49 which reads as follows: Rule 49 “49. Punishment to be given by the competent authority shall be as under:- (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iii) Reduction to a lower post or time- scale or to a lower stage in a time scale (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University by negligence or by breach of orders; (v) Suspension; (vi) Removal from service of the University, which does not disqualify from future employment; (vii) Dismissal from service of the University, which ordinarily disqualifies from Future employment; (viii) Fine to be deducted from salary” We do not find any merit in this contention. There is no doubt that under suspension is one of punishments which may be imposed on a 4 permanent teacher under the aforesaid Rule. However, there is also provision for suspension pending a departmental enquiry. Under Rule 44 which reads thus: “44. If the competent authority finds that the nature of the act under 1,2,3, or 4 of Paragraph 43 alleged is so serious as not to allow the employee to continue his work, an order suspending him may be passed and the persons shall continue to remain under suspension till a decision of a departmental enquiry or till such period as the competent authority deems fit. During the period of suspension, the employee will be entitled to a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to half the basic pay on the day of suspension and allowances as admissible on that.” As regards suspension under Rule 44, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were not “so serious” so as not to allow the employee to continue his work as provided in the rules. Firstly we are of the view that whether the act for which the explanation has been called for, is serious enough, to warrant continuation of the employee in his work is a matter which is left to the discretion of the college. It is not for this court to lightly interfere with the opinion formed in this regard by the college. 5 It must be borne in mind that the college authorities are in the best position to adjudge the effect & seriousness of the action of one of its teachers on the teaching and discipline in the college. Unless therefore, the action of suspension is shown to be palpably without any authority, or malafide, this court will not interfere with the discretion of the college under the provisions to suspend a teacher. No malafides are apparent from the present case. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned action of suspension which has been resorted to pending institution of departmental enquiry. Petition is therefore, dismissed of. JUDGE JUDGE smp