( 1 ) wp2634.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2634 OF 2011 Ravindra s/o. Suka Shirsath .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N.T. Bhagat, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent No.3; Mr. V.L. Dhoble, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 7. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 14.10.2011 P.C. :- 1. This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2011, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, on the petitioner’s appeal filed under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, challenging the legality and correctness of the decision of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, directing his dismissal. 2. The facts leading to this litigation can be stated as under :- 3. In 1997 the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in a college run by respondent No. 4 – institute, a registered public trust. On 15th October, ( 2 ) wp2634.11 2007, the management of respondent No.4 served on the petitioner a show cause notice directing him to submit his reply as to why inquiry should not be conducted against him for various acts of indiscipline etc. On 02.08.2008 the petitioner submitted his explanation in writing that he was put under suspension by respondent No.4 vide order dated 16th August, 2008. Prior thereto on 7th March, 2008, the petitioner was served with charge-sheet. He submitted a detail reply to the charge- sheet on 10th June, 2008. Thereafter the inquiry committee was constituted and it recorded the evidence on various occasions. The petitioner was allowed to cross- examine the witnesses. During the inquiry the petitioner was persistently demanding copies of certain document on which respondent No.4/management was placing reliance, but until disposal of the inquiry the documents were not given to him. The inquiry was concluded and report was sent recording that most of the charges were proved against the petitioner. Few days thereafter on 05.08.2009 respondent No.4/management sent an order of dismissal to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner went before the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, by filing appeal under section 59 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994. The learned Presiding Officer, thereafter hearing submissions of the Counsels of the parties went through the original record of inquiry and held in clear terms ( 3 ) wp2634.11 that the charges proved against the petitioner were found to be of very serious nature. The learned Presiding Officer also held that the behaviour and the conduct of the petitioner was not at all befitting to his post as a Lecturer. He said further that the petitioner did not bother to protect sanctity of his position and did not behave responsibly. The learned Presiding Officer further held that the objection raised by the petitioner that the inquiry Officer was bias and partisan because he was on the pay-roll of the management was not acceptable. The learned Presiding Officer then placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment in the case of Principal, B.M. Ruia Mahila Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs. Nini Gulla (Mrs.) & Others, 2001 (3) Bom.C.R.140. Consequently, he therefore held that no interference is called for in the proposed action against the petitioner. He dismissed the appeal. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended probably for the first time that the inquiry was vitiated because the report of the inquiry committee was not sent to the petitioner and thus he was denied an opportunity of hearing before the management could take decision on the quantum of punishment. He placed reliance on the Statute 433-A-3(G) & (H) of the Statutes Governing Terms and Conditions of Service of the Teachers appointed in the University/Colleges and Institutions conducted by the University/Affiliated Colleges/Constituent colleges/ ( 4 ) wp2634.11 Recognized Institutions, which reads as under:- “143-A-3(G) – Action to be taken on the Inquiry Report : On receipt of the Inquiry Reports the Competent Authority shall decide within one month the action to be taken in the light of the findings of the Inquiry Authority. In case any of the charges against the teacher concerned are held as proved, the Competent Authority shall decide the punishment to be inflicted on him and shall give him notice asking him to show cause within two weeks, why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him. The person concerned shall invariably be supplied with a copy of the Inquiry Report along with the show cause notice, if any. Explanation : Although this Statute contains the procedure to be followed before inflicting a penalty classified as major, it shall be open to the Competent Authority to inflict one of the minor penalties, if it so decides. 143-A-3(H) – Final action : On receipt of a reply to the show cause notice from the teacher charged, the penalty/penalties shall be finally decided and communicated within two weeks, by the Competent Authority, taking into consideration the reply given and his previous service record.” 5. This objection is, however, not pertinent now at belated stage because such objection was relevant only if the delinquent could prove that serious prejudice is caused to him due to such lapse. Such objection ought to have been taken when the appeal was heard. Along with this objection the petitioner ought to have asserted and proved how the lapse had caused serious prejudice to him. ( 5 ) wp2634.11 So a new ground which is totally alien to the case of the petitioner is not permissible at this stage. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also asserted that the documents, the petitioner had demanded during the inquiry proceeding, were not given to him despite inquiry officer’s direction and this lapse on the part of the complainant/management would go to the route of the case. This objection is not new and was raised during the appeal. However, the learned Presiding Officer rightly ignored this objection because the documents which were demanded had no bearing with the charges levelled against the petitioner and the evidence recorded. At this stage one may not be able to go into the details of the inquiry because that stage is already over when the appeal was decided. As said above, the learned Presiding Officer while dismissing the appeal in very strong words expressed his opinion that the petitioner’s conduct was not befitting to the post he held. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School & Ors., AIR 1993 S.C.2155. He said that in this case also the inquiry officer appointed by respondent No. 4/management was an advocate/lawyer on their pay-roll. He said that since the advocate was regularly getting ( 6 ) wp2634.11 honorarium from the management every month, he therefore had pecuniary interest and so he was bias and partisan. He pointed out further that this pertinent objection was raised by the petitioner even before the inquiry officer himself during the inquiry. He said that this objection raised by the petitioner was conveniently brushed aside/ignored by the inquiry officer. This according to him would clearly show that the inquiry officer was partisan. 7. I am not inclined to accept this contention. A law professional has to provide various kinds of services to his client. If the inquiry officer was regularly providing legal service to respondent No.3, in addition to such service, he could also be given the task of conducting inquiry for which again he would be paid certain amount as his remuneration. There is nothing on record to show that besides getting remuneration for the working, the Inquiry Officer did any overt-act, which would indicate that he had bias and partisanship. Since he ignored this objection he should be said to be biased. He probably thought that such objection was not pertinent and in view of these facts and in absence of any specific allegation against the inquiry officer, this objection certainly was impertinent. 8. The last contention of the petitioner’s advocate is that the so called office bearer who served charge- ( 7 ) wp2634.11 sheet on the petitioner was not at all office bearer of the society. On going through the record it is found that the charge-sheet which was served on the petitioner was apparently signed by some one who was then President of respondent No.4/society – public trust. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is now trying to say that the person who has put his signature on the charge- sheet at the relevant time was not President or even member. He is trying to tell me that this person had no authority to sign the charge-sheet and to serve it on the petitioner. I am afraid, this kind of objection is not pertinent at this stage because such objection was not raised during the pendency of the inquiry and during the pendency of the appeal. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/OCT11/wp2634.11ok