wp4398.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4398 OF 2011 1 Ashok s/o Gabaji Katkar, age 47 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Presently working as a Lecturer in Arts, Commerce and Science College at Yawal, Tq. Yawal, district Jalgaon 2 Dilip s/o Panditrao Nikam, Age 52 years, Occ. Service, presently working as a Vice Principal/ Lecturer in arts, commerce and Science College, Jalgaon District Jalgaon 3 Pandurang s/o Baburao Patil, age 42 years, Occ. Service, Presently working as a Head of Deptt. Of Zoology/Lecturer in Arts, Commerce and Science college, Jalgaon District Jalgaon 4 Pramod s/o Sonu Patil, Age 52 years, Occ. Service, Presently working as a Lecturer in Arts, Commerce and Science College at Yawal, Tq. Yawal District Jalgaon ...Petitioners Versus 1 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon Through its Registrar, 2 The Joint Director of Higher Education Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon ...Respondents wp4398.11 -2- ..... Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the petitioners Mr. A.B. Girase, advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 26TH JULY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3 The petitioners impugn the order dated 10.6.2011 passed by respondent No.1, University thereby withdrawing the approval granted to the services of the petitioners on account of violation of code of professional ethics. 4 Shri Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the Lecturers duly approved by the Vice Chancellor. The show cause notices came to be issued to them on 25.8.2010, wp4398.11 -3- which were duly replied by the petitioners on 2.9.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed an order withdrawing the approval. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.1 does not have any authority or jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the petitioners, much less regarding approval granted to them. According to the learned counsel, there is no provision in the Statute or in the Act authorizing the respondent No.1 to take such action. The learned counsel further contends that the said action is based on erroneous ground and no such acts of commission, as laid down in the show cause notice and in the impugned order, have been committed by the petitioners. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath s/o Jadardhan Joshi and Anr. Vs. North Maharashtra University, reported in 1999 (4) Bom. C.R. 123 and another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhuri s/o Satish Patil Vs. North Maharashtra University delivered in writ petition No. 3665 of 1995. 5 Per contra, Shri Girase, learned counsel for respondent No.1 University submits that the approval has been granted by the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor, in the interest of the institution, after following principles of natural justice has decided to withdraw the said approval granted in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were found to have violated code of professional ethics and for the wp4398.11 -4- maintenance of discipline the said action was necessary. The learned counsel further contends that when the statute gives power to the Vice Chancellor to grant approval then the said power necessarily would include the power to withdraw the approval granted. He further contends that for any misconduct and/or indiscipline, the respondent cannot be a mute spectator. 6 With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. It is not disputed that the petitioners are lecturer of colleges affiliated with the respondent No.1 University and their appointments are duly approved by the respondent No.1. The facts of issuance of show cause notices and the reply given to them is also a matter of record. The moot question for consideration is whether the respondent No.1 is authorized and empowered to take such action against the petitioners on the alleged ground of violation of code of professional ethics. 7 It is a trite law that when the statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that matter. For taking an action which entails the consequence of withdrawal of approval, the said action cannot be resorted to unless authorized by any Statute or Rule. The Statute does not give such power or authority. Shri Girase, learned counsel fairly submits that the Statute wp4398.11 -5- does not contain any provision which authorizes any authority of the respondent No.1 to withdraw the approval granted. His bone of contention was that the said authority or power should be read into the provisions of granting approval. 8 The act complained of, if proved, may give rise to the disciplinary action, but the management or the institution, where the petitioners are working, would be empowered to take any action and the respondent No.1 would not be entitled to take any action. In view of absence of power or authority, such action of respondent No.1 withdrawing approval of the petitioners would be unjust and improper as the powers are not vested with it. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Madhuri Satish Patil (referred supra) has held that “the power and authority of the University does not extend to take any action such as disciplinary or otherwise against the teachers employed by the affiliated colleges. The same has been concluded in the case of Jagannath Joshi (referred supra) that any legal issues relating to these points are therefore not open for any further debate”. 9 In view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this court in the cases of Madhuri Satish Patil and Jagannath Joshi (referred supra), the said issue is no longer res-integra and it will have to be held that the impugned order withdrawing approval on the ground of violation of wp4398.11 -6- code of professional ethics is beyond power, authority and jurisdiction of the respondent No.1. 10 In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. The petition is disposed of. *****