IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2141 /2011 ( Nutan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal and another vs. Madhav S.Sirsat and another ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.A. Vaishnav, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. A.P. Raghute, Adv.for Respondent no.1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATED : 26 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur on 25.2.2011 partly allowing the Appeal filed by respondent no.1 and asking the petitioner-Management to conduct a fresh enquiry against the respondent no.1 within a period of two months and complete the same in accordance with rules within a period of six months thereafter. The respondent no.1 had challenged the order of his termination before the Tribunal under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 was vitiated as the relevant documents were not supplied by the petitioners to the respondent no.1, though they were specifically demanded. Though the petitioners disputed the claim of the respondent no.1, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that the enquiry against the respondent no.1 was vitiated for more than one reason. It was observed by the Tribunal that the show-cause notice was issued by the Principal of the College who was one of the members of the Inquiry Committee. The relevant documents were not supplied to the respondent no.1 by the petitioners though they were demanded. The Tribunal held that sufficient time was not granted to the respondent no.1 for submission of his defence statement and the petitioners further failed to follow the relevant provisions of Rule 46 of the Maharashtra Non- Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non- Teaching Employee) Rules, 1984. Since the Tribunal held that the enquiry conducted by the petitioners against the respondent no.1 was vitiated, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to conduct a fresh enquiry against the respondent no.1 within a period of two months and complete it within the stipulated time. The order passed by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper as the Tribunal has elaborately considered the record and has recorded cogent reasons for holding that the enquiry conducted by the petitioners was vitiated. The findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be lightly interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against the respondent no.1 again, as the respondent no.1 has retired during the pendency of the proceedings, is liable to be rejected as this is not a case where the disciplinary proceedings are being initiated against the respondent no. 1 for the first time. Since the disciplinary action conducted against the respondent no.1 was vitiated for the reasons recorded in the judgment passed by the Tribunal, there was nothing wrong in directing a fresh enquiry. Merely because the respondent no.1 had retired in the meantime, it cannot be said that an enquiry cannot be conducted against the retired employee, especially when the enquiry is not initiated after retirement for the first time. The judgment reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3154 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in that decision, the employee had already retired and then the disciplinary proceedings were sought to be initiated after the retirement. The judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC page 1831 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners also cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in that decision, the disciplinary proceedings were sought to be initiated against the bank official after he had superannuated from service and only a show-cause notice was issued to him just prior to his retirement. In any case, if it is the case of the petitioners that the Tribunal ought not have directed an enquiry against the respondent no.1 after his retirement, it would be necessary for the petitioners to pay 50% of back wages to the respondent no.1 from the date of his dismissal till the date of his superannuation, with all incidental benefits as in view of the Tribunal, and rightly so, the enquiry was vitiated for more reasons than one and the termination was illegal. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare