1 wp9988.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9988 OF 2010 Dr. Bapurao s/o Dhondu Desai, Age: 57 years,Occ: Nil, R/o.1, Zilla Parishad Colony, Near Shiv College stop,Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Through Vice Chancellor. 2. North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Through its Registrar. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for respondents. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 20th January, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard finally with consent by making Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. A.G. Talhar, learned Counsel appearing for 2 wp9988.10 petitioner has stated that though there are several grounds right from the correctness of findings on the part of Enquiry Officer in Departmental Enquiry and use of alleged documents procured for reliance during that inquiry. I find that his basic contentions were due to alleged violation of provisions of Section 14 sub-section 9 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. He has also urged that Statues framed for University of Pune under Section 42 and / or 73 of Poona University Act, 1974 are applicable even to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Separate procedure for initiation and conduct of the Departmental Enquiry is prescribed. Here, that procedure has not been followed and Departmental Enquiry has been conducted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. He has further pointed out that charge sheet itself has been issued on 07-03-2007 by Secretary of the University without any reference to provisions of Section 14(9) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Attention is also invited to order of dismissal dated 24-11-2008 to show that enquiry report appears to have been considered by the Management Council and thereafter, Secretary of the University has exercised powers as conferred upon him by Vice Chancellor and imposed punishment. He contends that requisite grounds in this respect have been specifically raised in appeal memo before the College Tribunal but those grounds are not looked into. 3 wp9988.10 3. Mr. Vivek Dhage, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has stated that the contentions raised are only of technical nature and no prejudice is caused to petitioner. He has urged that misconduct of grave nature is found established by the College Tribunal and looking into nature of said misconduct, this Court should not interfere in the matter. 4. Mr. A.G. Talhar, learned Counsel for petitioner has during the course of argument pointed out that petitioner is now on the verge of retirement. 5. I have perused judgment delivered by the College Tribunal. The College Tribunal has made reference to the allegations levelled against petitioner and has found that those allegations have been proved in Departmental Enquiry. 6. However, the stand of present petitioner that his appointing authority has not initiated Departmental Enquiry and issuance of charge sheet, as also dismissal order is not by competent authority, has not been evaluated at all. If this is correct, it is apparent that the entire inquiry itself may fall to ground. However, I am not concluding this issue at this stage. The College Tribunal 4 wp9988.10 has to apply its mind to provisions of Section 14(9) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and then record a finding on impact of its violation. 7. In view of this, other contention of Advocate Mr. A.G. Talhar that procedure prescribed by Statute of University of Poona for conduct of Departmental Enquiry, ought to have been followed is kept open for consideration of College Tribunal. The contention demands examination of material to find out whether there is any prejudice really caused to petitioner because of taking recourse to provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others vs. S.K. Sharma reported in 1996(3) S.C.C. 364, can be looked into for guidance in this respect. 8. In view of this position, impugned judgment of College Tribunal dated 28-09-2010 delivered in Appeal No.NMU-09/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings therein are restored to its file for taking fresh decision, in accordance with law. As the petitioner is on the verge of retirement, the Tribunal shall make attempt to take fresh decision, as early as possible, and in any case, within four months from the date of communication of 5 wp9988.10 this order. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE sut/Jan11/wp9988.10