AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUDGMENT : [Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.]
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has put forth following prayers:
“A] By a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directions in the like nature, the impugned order dated 11-07-2022 passed by respondent No. 4 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B] By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or directions in the like nature, respondent No. 4 be restrained from holding enquiry against the petitioner.
C] By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or directions in the like nature, respondent No. 4 be directed to process the pension papers and pay all other retiral benefits to the petitioner.”
It is the case of the Petitioner that he worked with Respondent No. 4 as a Principal from 31.07.2017 to 31.07.2022. According to the Petitioner, during this period his work was spotless and there was no complaint about his performance. However, on 11.07.2022, Respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice as well as order of suspension. The Petitioner received the same through RPAD on 26.07.2022. Only five days period was left for his retirement and at such stage, he was placed under suspension and enquiry was initiated against him. Petitioner was in fact working on 14.07.2022 and was part of Selection Committee meant for the promotion of the Professors along with Chairman of the Selection Committee. Petitioner further contends that before receiving notice on 26.07.2022 he read news in the newspaper and got knowledge that the Management has placed him under suspension and an enquiry is proposed against him. He therefore informed the Management by letter dated 27.07.2022 that he was on medical leave from 16.07.2022 and there was no reason to place him under suspension and to hold enquiry against him. Ignoring that the Management started enquiry proceedings. However, till the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.08.2022, no charge sheet was received by him and no enquiry officer was appointed. Petitioner stood retired on superannuation on 31.07.2022.
Petitioner further contends that the statute framed under the Puna University Act, do not empower the Management to continue enquiry after the employee has attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, by relying on Bhagirathi Jena v/s. Board of Directors O.S.F.C. and others ,Ramdas Govind Bakhle v/s. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2977 of 2009 (Dagaji Damodar Bacchav v/s. Jalgaon Jilha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd. Jalgaon and others), Petitioner contends that same statutes were considered and relied upon in all these cases. Petitioner further contends that the Management cannot continue suspension after his retirement and cannot initiate or continue enquiry as the statute do not permit the Management to do so. In these facts, Petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefs mentioned herein above.
By order dated 08.09.2022, this Court after observing that, from the show cause notice it appears that charges dating back to 2016 onwards have been levelled and though a lengthy show cause notice has been drafted, prima facie, there appears to be vagueness in the charges levelled upon the Petitioner and after noting the submission of the Petitioner that charge sheet cum show cause notice has not been issued and the Enquiry Officer/Committee is yet to be appointed/constituted and the fact that Petitioner has already superannuated on 31.07.2022, restrained Respondent No. 4/Management from initiating departmental enquiry against the Petitioner.
By order dated 23.09.2025 this Court directed the Management to submit a proposal for release of 50% of the gratuity amount payable to the Petitioner and further directed the Joint Director of Higher Education (Respondent No. 2) to approve said proposal without any demur within a time frame of one month. Petitioner was directed to give an undertaking that in case any amount is to be recovered from him, he would make the same good.
Respondent No. 4/Management has filed affidavit in reply of the President. It is averred that prior to interim order dated 08.09.2022, charge sheet has been served on the Petitioner on 27.06.2022. In the charge sheet allegations have been levelled about alleged misappropriation of amount. It is further averred that after suspending the Petitioner and verifying the documents, it was realized that Petitioner has committed several illegalities and therefore additional charge sheet is also ready to be issued to the Petitioner. However, due to interim order passed by this Court no further steps were taken. Charges levelled against the Petitioner are serious in nature and as such until enquiry officer adjudicates about it and forms prima facie opinion about the vagueness of the charges at this juncture would be inappropriate and will be against the right of the Management to initiate enquiry against the wrong doer for his wrong doings. Copies of charge sheet and additional charge sheet is annexed with the reply.
Further averment is that interim order dated 08.09.2022 was exparte order and was passed without hearing Respondent No. 4. The cases cited by the Petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. Enquiry has been initiated prior to attaining the age of superannuation and the Management has right to initiate action. Rule 27 of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules permits Management to conduct enquiry even though the employee attains the age of superannuation.
In support of these averments reliance is placed on Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation v/s. Kamal Swaroop Tandon .
Heard learned advocate for the Petitioner, learned AGP for State and learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4 at length. Perused the record. During the course of hearing by order dated 04.05.2026 we directed the Management to produce original record of the show cause notice and the charge sheet and original outward register. Management has produced the record and we have perused it.
Petitioner has placed reliance on Statute No. 431 and 432, which are as follows:
“431. Grounds for taking any disciplinary action against a teacher:
No disciplinary action shall be taken or punishment inflicted on the teacher confirmed in service except on one or more of the following grounds:
(i)Misconduct
(ii)Act or omission involving moral turpitude
(iii)Willful and persistent neglect of duty
(iv)Incompetence
Provided that the ground of incompetence shall not be used against the teacher after he has served the University/College/Institution for a period of five years or more including the period of probation.
432. Penalties:
1.The penalties that can be inflicted on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 431 shall be the following
and shall be classified into minor and major penalties.
(I) Minor Penalties:
(i)Reprimand, Warning or Censure,
(ii)Withholding of Increments.
(II) Major Penalties:
(i)Reduction to a post in the lower pay-scale or to a lower stage of increment in the employees’ own pay-scale.
(ii)Termination of service.
(iii)Compulsory retirement
(iv)Removal from the service of the University/College/Recognized Institution
(v)Dismissal from the service of the University/College/Recognized Institution.
Provided however that the following shall not amount to penalty for the purposes of these statutes:
(i)Stoppage of increment of the teacher at the assessment bar in the time-scale of pay on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar.
(ii)Non promotion of the teacher, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, after consideration of his case for promotion to a grade or post for which the teacher is eligible.
(iii)Reversion of the teacher appointed on probation in any other grade or post to his permanent grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment, or the rules and order governing such probation.
(iv)Reversion of the teacher officiating in a higher grade or post to a lower grade or post, on the ground that the teacher is considered to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post or on any administrative ground unconnected with this conduct.
(v)Recall of the services of the teacher whose services had been borrowed from or lent to some outside authority at the disposal of such authority.
(vi)Termination of the services (a) of the teacher appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of his probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation, or;
(b)of the temporary teacher in accordance with the rules made in that behalf by the University; or
(c)of the teacher employed under an agreement, in accordance with the term of such agreement.
2. Specification of details of the penalties-
(i) Withholding of increment (s).
When an increment or increments of the teacher is/are withheld the authority imposing the punishment shall specify in its order
(a)the increment/number of increment (s) withheld.
(b)the period for which they are withheld.
(c)Whether the stoppage of increments shall have effect on the future increments, and
(d)Whether the period for which the increments are withheld shall be exclusive of the leave (except casual leave and other leave taken on valid grounds ) taken during the period.
(ii) Reduction to a post in the lower pay scale or to a lower stage of
increment in the teacher’s own pay scale.
The authority imposing this punishment shall specify in its order
(a)The period for which such reduction shall be effective and
(b)Whether on restoration the order of reduction shall have effect on future increments.
3.Notwithstanding anything contained in the Statutes and in other Rules of the University/College/Recognized Institution, if any, the teacher who is reverted to a lower stage of increment in his own timescale of pay as a measure of punishment shall not ordinarily be restored to his original pay scale from which he was reverted or to the original incremental stage in his own timescale of pay unless the period stipulated in his order of punishment is completed.”
The issue as to whether on attaining the age of superannuation Management can proceed with the enquiry in absence of any enabling provision in the statute governing the parties is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in Dagaji Bacchav (supra) while considering this issue held thus;
“11.Taking into account the factual matrix of the case and the legal submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, the moot question to be adjudicated in the present matter is as to whether on attaining the age of superannuation, the Management can proceed with the enquiry in absence of any enabling provision in the Statute governing the parties. The perusal of the Statute makes it clear that there is no enabling provision in the Statute authorizing the Institution i.e. employer to proceed with the enquiry after the employee has attained the age of superannuation. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena’s case (referred supra) clearly lays down the dictum that in absence of any provision, the disciplinary enquiry can not be continued after the superannuation of the employee. The employer has no legal authority in that behalf. The Division Bench of this Court also in case of Ramdas Bakhle followed the same view. It is clear that once an employee attains the age of superannuation, the relationship of Master and servant comes to an end. In the present case, the Statute also does not contain any enabling provision giving any authority to the Management to continue with the enquiry.
12.--
13.It will be necessary to refer to the charges which have been issued to the petitioner. On perusal of the said charges, the same are in respect of alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Charge no. 1 deals with the act of misconduct ( terrorizing the persons ) committed by the petitioner on 8/4/2009 in the multi utility conference room along with some others. Charge no. 2 refers to the involvement of the petitioner in politics and thereby being negligent in his duty and acting against the interest of the Institution. Charge no. 3 deals with giving shop no. 28 owned by the Institution to the Credit Society run by the employees of the Institution. Charge no. 4 dealt with not remaining in the college for the full time and leaving premises without the permission of the Management and charge no. 5 was with regard to the fact that though he was a Lecturer in the College, he used to look after the work of Satpuda Automobiles and as such was negligent in the duty.
14.In the present case, Statute 431 gives four grounds, in which disciplinary action can be initiated. Those four grounds are :
(i)Misconduct
(ii)Act or omission involving moral turpitude
(iii)Willful and persistent neglect of duty
(iv)Incompetence and the penalty prescribed under Statute 432 are under two heads :
(i)Minor penalties i.e. reprimand, warning or censure or withholding of increments ; and
(ii)Major penalties :
(a)Reduction to a post in the lower payscale or to a lower stage of increment in the employees’ own payscale.
(b)Termination of service.
(c)Compulsory retirement
(d)Removal from the service of the University/College/Recognized Institution
(e)Dismissal from the service of the University/College/Recognized Institution.
15.Perusal of the Statutes 431 and 432 clearly depicts that it does not postulate punishment of withholding of pension or that recovery can be ordered against an employee. So also, bare glance of the charges show that not a single charge deals with pecuniary loss caused to the Management and recovery of any crystallized sum on account of alleged loss. No such charge appears in that regard. In such circumstances, when there is no charge claiming any crystallized amount from the petitioner on account of alleged loss, so also, the Statute nowhere authorizes the employer to initiate any enquiry or punishment in respect of recovery of any amount, then in such circumstances, it will have to be held that in absence of any enabling provision in the Statute, the employer would not have any right, authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry against the employee after his attaining the age of superannuation. In the present case, the employee has attained the age of superannuation on 31/5/2009 and as such after the said date, the respondent no. 1 would not have any legal authority to proceed with the enquiry. As such, Rule will have to be made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ C ’ of the petition and direct the respondents not to hold any enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the charges which are served upon the petitioner on 28/4/2009, which are annexed at Page no. 21 of the Paper book along with affidavit in reply filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2.”
Adverting to the contentions of the Management that charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 27.07.2022, perusal of original charge sheet shows that the date put on the charge sheet is 27.07.2022 and same is sent through RPAD on 28.07.2022 to the Petitioner. There is no acknowledgment placed on record showing service of the same on the Petitioner. Perusal of charge sheet shows that following charges are levelled against the Petitioner:
a)Without prior permission proceeding on leave.
b)Not submitting audit report for the Financial Year 2020-21, 2021-22.
c)Not giving details of bank accounts maintained for financial transactions.
d)Not giving details of stock register, dead stock register of the college.
e)Using inappropriate language while doing correspondence with the Managment.
f)Keeping original record of the Management in the personal custody.
g)Obtaining signature of Vice President on the service book instead of signature of the President.
h)Not obeying orders of the Society
i)Not keeping record up to date
j)On letter of re-checking of Ph.D degree, forged the signature of Vice President and making correspondence by forging signature of the President on the advertisement, for the post of Principal.
k)Submitting audit reports of the Financial Year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 late and there were many deficiencies pointed out by the Chartered Accountant in the special inspection and suspicious and fictitious bills were also found.
All these charges are vague and there is nothing on record to show that any serious charges of misappropriation etc., are levelled against the Petitioner. It appears that on the verge of retirement these vague charges are levelled against the Petitioner.
It is pertinent to note that copy of original additional charge sheet is not placed on record by the Management. It therefore appears that an afterthought stand is taken by the Management that serious charges of misappropriation etc., are required to be levelled against the Petitioner. The impugned action of the Management therefore is unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary. It appears that Petitioner is being victimized on the verge of his retirement.
Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the decision in Dagaji Bacchav (supra). We are of the opinion that issuance of suspension order and initiation of departmental enquiry against the Petitioner is an arbitrary, unreasonable action on the part of Respondents and same cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case. The impugned action appears to be afterthought and malafide and hence is unsustainable. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
The Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.
Original record be returned back to Respondent No. 4-Management.