Bombay High Court
Prof. Chitra Anant Salunkhe vs The Principal on 18 December, 2012
Bench: V.M. Kanade, P. D. Kode
1/47
(APP(L)-91-2011)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (L) NO. 91 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2060 OF 2010
Prof. Chitra Anant Salunkhe )
Presently residing at 1/B/1, )
Goodearth CHS Ltd., Road No.2 )
Sindhi Society, Chembur, )
Mumbai 400 071 ) ...Appellant.
(Original Petitioner)
V/s
1. The Principal, )
Siddharth College of Law )
Anand Bhavan 3rd floor, )
Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, )
Mumbai- 400 023 )
)
2. The Member Secretary, )
Peopole's Education Society, )
348, Anand Bhavan, )
Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, )
Mumbai - 400 023 )
)
3. University of Mumbai )
through the Registrar, )
M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai )
)
4. The Joint Director, )
Higher and Technical Education, )
Govt of Maharashtra. ) Respondents.
(Original Respondents)
Mrs Chitra Salunkhe, the Appellant in person.
Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar with Mr. B.K. Barve with Ms. Archana
Lad i/b B.K. Barve & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Mr. R. Rodrigues for Respondent No.3.
Mr. More AGP for Respondent No.4.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE &
P.D. KODE JJ.
Judgment reserved on 03/12/2012
Judgment pronounced on 18/12/2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.)
1. By this appeal,
ig the Appellant is challenging the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
dated 17/01/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge
summarily dismissed the Writ Petition and confirmed the
order of the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal who had
dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein
challenging her removal from service by order dated
21/05/2009 passed by the Management. For the sake of
convenience, the Appellant shall be refereed to as
"Petitioner" and the Respondents shall be referred to as
"Respondents".
2. The services of the Petitioner were terminated pursuant
to the order of dismissal passed by the Management dated
21/05/2009 which accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer
dated 23/03/2009 and dated 30/3/2009.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner in a nutshell is that in-
(APP(L)-91-2011)
charge Principal of the College one Mr. A.K. Inamdar and Mr.
V.B. Tiwari who was also working as Professor in the said
College felt threatened after the Petitioner passed her
NET/SET examination and anticipated that soon thereafter
the Petitioner would be eligible to be appointed as Principal
of the College and, as a result, Mr. Inamdar would not be
confirmed as Principal and, secondly, there were past
disputes and differences between Mr. A.K. Inamdar and V.B.
Tiwari on the one hand and the Petitioner on the other hand
as a writ of which they several false and bogus criminal
complaints as well as complaints in the University against the
Petitioner and, as a result of the said animosity, had initiated
inquiry against her. The second grievance of the Petitioner is
that the Inquiry Officer committed breach of principles of
natural justice and without giving proper opportunity to the
Petitioner filed adverse reports against her. It is also her
case that he was biased and he had already prejudged the
issue which was pending before him and, thirdly, it is
contended that without production of the alleged bogus and
fabricated B.A. Decree Certificate, the Inquiry Officer came to
the conclusion that the said Certificate was bogus only on the
basis of the letter which was purportedly written by Registrar
of Kakatia University and later on it transpired that such a
letter was never received by the police or any other authority
and on the basis of such letter which was not duly proved,
the Inquiry Officer had given adverse reports. Lastly, it is
submitted that the Inquiry Officer submitted the report on
(APP(L)-91-2011)
23/03/2009 and the Notice of Motion filed by the Petitioner
came up before the Division Bench of this Court on
24/03/2009 on which date, Division Bench of this Court gave
direction to the Inquiry Officer to permit the Petitioner to
cross-examine the two witnesses and thereafter to consider
the cross-examination and submit report. The grievance of
the Petitioner is that though the report was already tendered
by the Inquiry Officer on 23/03/2009, this fact was not
brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court and
secondly when this fact was informed to the Inquiry Officer
he did not give any further time to the Petitioner to cross-
examine the two witnesses and completed the formality of
permitting her to cross-examine the witnesses on 30/03/2009
and, on the same day, informed the Management that he
would not like to change the report dated 23/3/2009 by
ignoring the cross-examination. In this background, it will be
necessary to briefly take into consideration brief facts which
are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal.
4 As pointed out earlier, there is a chequered history of
disputes between the Petitioner on the one hand and the
Acting/in-charge Principal Mr. A.K. Inamdar and Mr. V.B.
Tiwari on the other hand and, for this purpose, it is necessary
to give brief chronology of events.
Chronology of events:
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(1) The Petitioner appeared for her B.A.
Examination in 1988 from Kakatia University by
attending Progressive Classes, Thane (West).
(2) The Petitioner submitted the original B.A.
Degree Certificate to the College. However, it is
alleged that the said original Certificate is lost
and even copy thereof is not available.
According to the Petitioner, in the letter written
by the her to the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Azad Maidan Police stted dated
26/07/2007, she has stated that she had joined
Progressive Classes, Thane (West) and attempts
made by her to get the duplicate copy or
number enrollment number failed and she came
to know that the Classes were closed since the
Proprietor/owner of the said Classes Mr. Ganesh
Kamlakar Naik committed fraud on many
students and cheated them and hence he was
arrested in 1990. However, later on, he died in
the same year.
(3) The Petitioner then joined LL.B. Course and
completed the said three years LL.B. Course
and secured 62% marks and stood first from
Siddharth Law College.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(4) The Petition then in November, 2000 made
an application to the People's Education Society
with her bio-data for the post of Teacher on
clock hour basis and on 01/01/2001, she was
appointed as "Fellow" as per the tradition of
People's Education Society.
(5) The Petitioner then jointed LL.M. Course and
received scholarship from Mumbai University as
she had obtained 366 marks out of 600 and
stood 7th in the merit list for LL.B. Examination
from the scheduled caste category.
(6) On 04/04/2001, the Petitioner was awarded
'Bharat Ratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Birth
Centry Award 2000' for securing highest marks
in the law from the scheduled caste category.
(7) In 2002, the Petitioner passed LL.M with
57% marks from the Mumbai University.
(8) The Petitioner was to appear for interview
which was to be held by the Management on
12/10/2012.
(9) The said Mr. V.B. Tiwari sent a letter to the
(APP(L)-91-2011)
said Mr. A.K. Inamdar, stating therein that
excess marks were given in the LL.M paper of
the Petitioner. This letter was sent one day
before the said interview. In spite of this, on
12/10/2012, the Petitioner was selected by the
Selection Committee.
(10) In 2003, the Petitioner appeared for
NET/SET examination and cleared the said
examination.
(11) On 24/8/2004, services of the Petitioner
were terminated without issuing show-cause
notice and without giving hearing by the
Management on the ground that they did not
want full time lecturer.
(12) The order of her termination by the
Management was challenged by the Petitioner
by filing an appeal before the University
Tribunal being Appeal No.21 of 2004.
Application for intervention filed by the said Mr.
V.B. Tiwari was rejected. Appeal of the
Petitioner was allowed and direction was given
to the Management of Siddharth College of Law
to reinstate the Petitioner with backwages and
and direction was also given to pay costs to the
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Petitioner.
(13) On account of various complaints which
were filed against the Petitioner, on 2/1/2007
Mr. Jayant Dighe, Registrar of Mumbai
University issued a letter to the Member
Secretary and Chairman of People's Education
Society to conduct an inquiry under Statute
439B(1) against the Petitioner. Mr. A.B.M.
Shaikh, retired City Civil Court Judge was
appointed as Inquiry Officer. He, however,
resigned in May, 2007.
(14) Direction was given by this Court in Writ
Petition No.1209 of 2007 to complete the
inquiry within a time bound schedule.
(15) The Management appointed Mr. B.S.
Govekar, retired Sessions Judge as Inquiry
Officer and P.K. Sawant as presenting Officer to
conduct the inquiry. The inquiry against the
Petitioner commenced and the statement of Mr.
A.K. Inamdar and Assistant Registrar Prakash
Gosavi was recorded. Time was sought and
request was made that the matter may be kept
in the evening since there were number of court
cases pending in Court against the Petitioner.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
This request was denied and the matter was
adjourned to 18/03/2009.
(16) The Petitioner filed Notice of Motion No.175
of 2009 in Writ Petition No.1209 of 2007
seeking permission to cross-examine the
management witnesses and also made a
request that the Inquiry Officer may be changed
on the ground of prejudice, unfairness and bias
of the Inquiry Officer.
(17) Notice of Motion taken filed by the
Petitioner did not reach on 20/03/2009. The
Inquiry Officer, however, closed the inquiry on
that day even though he was aware that Notice
of Motion of the Petitioner was coming up for
hearing on 24/03/2009.
(18) On 23/03/2009, Inquiry Officer proceeded
to pass orders even before the order could be
passed in the Notice of Motion filed by the
Petitioner and held that the charges were
proved under Statute 439B(1) and
recommended to the Management that services
of the Petitioner should be terminated and she
should be removed from services.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(19) On 24/03/2009, Notice of Motion came up
for hearing before Division Bench. The
Management did not inform the Court that the
Inquiry Officer had tendered a negative and
adverse report against the Petitioner and
suppressed this fact from the Court. The Court
was pleased to permit the Petitioner to cross-
examine the Management witnesses and
allowed the Notice of Motion.
(20) On 27/03/2009, the Management sent
letter at 10.00 P.M. informing the Petitioner that
the Petitioner should cross-examine the
Management witnesses on 30/03/2009 which
was a last date of inquiry as per the directions
given by the Court on earlier occasion directing
that the inquiry should be completed on that
date. Petitioner, therefore, had no other option
but to cross-examine the Management witness
Mr. A.K. Inamdar.
(21) The Inquiry Officer sent a letter to the
Chairman of the Peoples Education Society in
which he observed that there was no need to
change his view even after cross-examination of
the two witnesses by the Petitioner. No reasons
were given by the Inquiry Officer.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(22) The Management accepted the
recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and
terminated the services of the Petitioner.
(23) The Petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal
before the College Tribunal which was
dismissed. Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner
under Article 226 was also dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS:
5. The Petitioner who is appearing in person, briefly, has
made the following submissions:-
6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge and the
Presiding Officer erred in appreciating the fact that the
Inquiry Officer had not given reasonable opportunity to the
Petitioner to cross-examine the Management witnesses and
further no opportunity was given to her to adduce the
evidence of her witnesses and, as a result of which the whole
inquiry itself was vitiated. Secondly, it is urged that even
though the Notice of Motion which was taken out by the
Petitioner seeking permission to cross-examine the two
witnesses was pending, the Inquiry Officer closed the inquiry
arbitrarily on 23/03/2009 and submitted report on
30/03/2009. The Management suppressed this fact from the
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Court on 24/03/2009 when a direction was given to the
Inquiry Officer to permit the Petitioner to cross-examine the
Management witnesses. It appears that the Inquiry Officer
permitted the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses on
30/03/2009 and without taking into consideration the
admissions given in the cross-examination by the said
witnesses informed the Management by letter dated
30/3/2009 that he did not wish to review his earlier report,
thus completely ignoring the cross-examination and
indirectly committing breach of the order of the High Court.
Thirdly, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge and the
Presiding Officer failed to appreciate that B.A. Degree
Certificate which was alleged to be bogus and heavily
referred to and relied upon in the whole inquiry, a copy of
the said B.A. Degree Certificate was neither the part of the
charge-sheet nor it was submitted during the inquiry
proceedings by the Respondents. It is submitted that the
entire inquiry was vitiated since on the similar charge under
Statute 439B(1), University had held full-fledged
departmental inquiry which was conducted and completed
by the University by appointing a retired High Court Judge. It
is contended that though the inquiry proceedings continued
for 108 weeks, the inquiry was completed in just 9 days and
that too in three sittings. She further contended that the
Inquiry Officer being the ex-faculty member and also being
close to in-charge Principal of the College and the presenting
Officer being part-time lecturer in the same College were
(APP(L)-91-2011)
interested in outcome of the inquiry and, therefore, ought to
have been disqualified from being Inquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer. It is also contended that the in-charge
Principal Mr. A.K. Inamdar in collusion with Mr. V.B. Tiwari
had initiated the said proceedings only in order to ensure
that the Petitioner who was fully qualified to be appointed as
Principal was removed from the College so that, he could be
continued as Principal of the College. Our attention was also
brought to the various complaints which were filed by Mr.
V.B. Tiwari and Mr. A.K. Inamdar before various forums and
the counter-complaints filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner
also submitted that Mr. A.K. Inamdar and Mr. V.B. Tiwari had
taken help of Mr. K.L. Bishnoi who was the then Additional
Commissioner of Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai to collect
evidence from Kaktia University and subsequently a letter
was sent from the said Wing that the alleged letter on which
reliance was placed by the Management was never received
by the police and it was never sent from the Kakatia
University.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged true
Management submitted that the LPA was not maintainable
and, therefore, on that ground appeal itself was liable to be
dismissed. He then submitted that the Inquiry Officer had
come to the conclusion on the basis of documents on record
that the degree which was tendered by the Petitioner was
(APP(L)-91-2011)
forged and fabricated document and, therefore, it was not
open for this Court to alter the finding of fact. It is submitted
that the contention of the Petitioner that there is violation of
the principles of natural justice is without any substance and
both, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge had
dealt with this aspect at length. He further submitted that
some of the points which were argued before us were never
argued by the Advocate for the Petitioner before the
Presiding Officer of the College Tribunal or before the
learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that even in the
report which was tendered by Justice P.S. Patankar, the
retired Judge of this Court, he had come to the conclusion
that the B.A. Degree of the Petitioner was not genuine and,
therefore, the Inquiry Officer was justified in holding that
charge against the Petitioner was duly established
REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
8. Perusal of the chronology of events and the spate of
complaint which have been filed by Mr. V. B. Tiwari and Mr.
A.K. Inamdar against the Petitioner and vice versa disclose
that in-charge Principal Mr. A.K. Inamdar and Mr. V.B. Tiwari
were at logger heads. Secondly, it is clear that there were
two groups in the Management; one who is supporting the
Petitioner and the other on whose behalf Mr B.K. Barve is
appearing is vehemently in favour of removal of the
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Petitioner. When the matter was placed for admission and
hearing after it was assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble
Chief Justice, the learned Advocate Mr. Avinash Khamkhedkar
appearing on behalf of the Management submitted that Mr.
More was tendering unconditional apology to the Court for
the harassment caused to the Petitioner and further stated
that the Management was willing to reinstate the the
Petitioner with full back-wages which would be paid with
interest. In view of that statement, this Court directed both
parties to tender consent terms so that the matter could be
disposed of. However, on the next date Mr. Barve appeared
and submitted that he represented the true Management
and, therefore, he sought time to file his reply. The matter
was, therefore, adjourned and kept on 3/12/2012. We had
pointed out that the appeal would be disposed of finally at
the stage of admission. On 3/12/2012, Mr. Dhakephalkar, the
learned Senior Counsel appeared with Mr. Barve on behalf of
Management and reiterated that they were representing the
true Management.
9. From the record, it appears that there is some dispute
going on between two faction of the Peoples Education
Society and it appears that the said proceedings are pending.
According to Mr. Avinash Khamkhedkar, it has been held that
the Management which he is representing is duly elected
Management whereas this fact is denied by Mr.
Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
(APP(L)-91-2011)
behalf of the alleged true Management. In view of this
controversy, we thought it fit to hear Mr. Dhakephalkar, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged
true Management instead of going into controversy as to who
is the duly elected and legally constituted Management
Committee. We would like to note here that though we have
heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel, we
have not given any finding that he is representing the true
Management. It is a matter of record that in all other
proceedings the so-called alleged true Management on
whose behalf vakalatnama has been filed by Mr. Barve had
never appeared either before the learned Single Judge or
before the Presiding Officer. Be that as it may. We therefore
proceed to decide the Petition on the basis of submissions
made by the Petitioner in person and Mr. Dhakephalkar, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged
true Management.
10 Before we proceed to deal with rival submissions, in our
view, it would be appropriate to briefly take a bird's eye view
of the various pending cases against the Petitioner on the
one hand and A.K. Inamdar and V.B. Tiwari on the other
hand.
(1) In 2002 the Petitioner passed
LL.M. with 57% from Mumbai University.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(2) On 11.10.2002 Mr. V. B. Tiwari sent a
letter to Mr. A. K. Inamdar stating that
there was over excess marking in the LL.M.
Paper of the Petitioner as the Petitioner
was to appear in interview being
conducted for post of a lecturer.
(3) On 12.10.2002, the Petitioner appeared
for interview held by the Management,
and was selected immediately by the
selection committee on merits.
(4) On 12.10.2002 the said A. K. Inamdar
refused to sign the selection papers of the
Petitioner on flimsy ground that the
Petitioner's original marksheet was not
produced. This, despite the fact that the
Petitioner had informed him that her
marksheet is submitted to University for a
consolidated copy of marksheet.
(5) In October/November 2012, Petitioner
filed complaint against Mr. V. B. Tiwari
under Atrocities Act, now the same is
Special Case No. 2 of 2003 at the Azad
Maidan Police Station.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(6) On 19.03.2003 the Sessions Court
passed an order that Mr. V. B. Tiwari
should not enter in the college premises
till the final disposal of the said Case.
However, he should be paid his regular
salary.
(7) On 19.09.2005 the final order was
passed and Mr. V. B. Tiwari was acquitted
from the charges.
(8) In November, 2002 Mr. A. K. Inamdar
was transferred to Dr. Ambedkar College
of Law, Wadala as a Lecturer.
(9) In December 2002 Mr. V. B. Tiwari
filed complaint before Bar Council of
Maharashtra and Goa bearing D.C. No.
230 of 2002 against the Petitioner.
of 2002, Complaint against the Petitioner
was dismissed by the Bar Council of
Maharashtra & Goa, with observations
that the same were frivolous.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(11) On 19.12.2002 Mr. V. B. Tiwari filed
complaint before the learned Additional
C.M.M. 8th Court at Esplanade,
questioning the Appellant's LL.M. Degree
and caste to harass the Petitioner.
(12) The said order of dismissal of
complaint was challenged by Mr. V. B.
Tiwari in High Court vide Cri. Application
No. 1430 of 2007 which also came to be
dismissed by Hon'ble Justice Shri B. H.
Marlapalle, J. vide Order dated
12.07.2007.
(13) Mr. V. B. Tiwari also filed Cri. Writ
Petition bearing No. 3193 of 2002 against
the Management of the said College for
not appointing regular principal and
challenging the extension of then
principal. The Petitioner was
unnecessarily made party to the said
proceedings.
(14) On 23.07.2003 the said Writ Petition
was dismissed by Justice Shri D. K.
Deshmukh with compensatory costs.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(15) Mr. V. B. Tiwari then filed Revision
before the High Court bearing Revision
Application No. 27 of 2004 in Cri. W. P.
No. 3193 of 2002 and also filed Contempt
Petition bearing No. 26 of 2004.
(16) On 1.04.2009 the Taxing Master
awarded the cost of Rs.25,000/- to the
Petitioner.
(17) On 14.01.2003 the Petitioner came
to be appointed as Full Time lecturer in
the said College on consolidated salary
of Rs. 8,000/- for a probation period of 2
years.
(18) In March 2003 the Petitioner was
appointed as Vice-Principal from the
designation to Assistant to Principal by
the management of Siddharth College of
Law.
(19) In 2003 there was a circular from
Govt. of Maharashtra that if the
candidates who were appointed on
consolidated salary basis clear the
NET/SET within 2 years from the date of
(APP(L)-91-2011)
appointment, they must be appointed on
regular Govt. Scale. If they fail to do so,
they must be terminated.
(20) In June 2003 the Petitioner first
appeared in NET exams but the mark
sheets of the said exams were misplaced
by the University. The same was also
informed by University in writing, when
Mr. V. B. Tiwari sought the information.
(21) In December 2003 Petitioner again
appeared for NET and cleared the said
exam. Even after clearing the NET, the
Petitioner was being paid the
consolidated salary.
(22) On 22.7.2004 then Dy. Chairman
Mr. S. S. Rege wrote letter to Chairman
that there is politics going on against
Petitioner and if she is illegally
terminated from the job, then he will
also resign from his post.
(23) On 24.8.2004 Mr. A. K. Inamdar was
retransferred back from Dr. Ambedkar
College of Law, Wadala to Siddharth
(APP(L)-91-2011)
College of Law as an in-charge Principal.
(24) On 24.8.2004 the Petitioner was
illegally terminated, without even a
show cause notice, a hearing or
following the due process of law, by the
Management on the grounds that they
did not want full time lecturer.
(25) On 2.9.2004 then Chairman K. H.
Ragannath wrote letter to the Petitioner
stating that she can re-apply for the
same post and "yours is not
termination".
(26) In September 2004 the Petitioner
approached College and University
Tribunal challenging the Order of
Termination vide Appeal No. 21 of 2004.
(27) Mr. V. B. Tiwari filed an application
for intervention and the same came to
be rejected on 30.9.2004 by Hon'ble
Justice Shri J. A. Patil (Retd.) on the
ground that the application was not for
intervention but for interference.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
of 2004 of the Petitioner came to be
allowed and Hon'ble Justice Shri J. A.
Patil directed the management of
Siddharth College of Law to reinstate
the Petitioner with back wages and
also directed them to pay costs to the
Petitioner.
(29) In 2004
ig the Petitioner filed
written and detailed complaint to the
Mumbai University against Mr. V. B.
Tiwari and Mr. Rathod, as she was
being physically and mentally
harassed at her place of work.
(30) On 28.04.2005 the Grievance
Committee of Mumbai University
came to the conclusion that Mr. V. B.
Tiwari and Mr. Rathod are guilty. It
has been certified by the Principal and
Secretary of the Management of the
said College. Therefore, the
Grievance Committee resolved that
the College be informed that Mr.
Rathod should be brought back to the
College and ensure that Mr. V. B.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Tiwari does not cause any further
harassment to the Petitioner.
(31) On 2-12-2004 Shri A. K. Inamdar
visited Kakatia University, Varangal,
Andhra Pradesh to inquire into
Petitioner's BA degree certificates and
inquire orally at his own costs without
informing anybody.
(32) On 10.1.2005 Mr. A. K. Inamdar
entered into the class-room front of
the students 125-150 while the
Petitioner was taking lecture and
abused the Petitioner in front of the
entire class of law students, when the
Petitioner complained to Police, Azad
Maidan Police Station registered NC
abut the same complaint, Director of
Public Prosecutor Maharashtra State
opined dated 23.2.2006 that this
complaint should be registered as a
cognizable offence against Shri A. K.
Inamdar u/s 294, 509, 504, 506(II) of
IPC and u/s 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocity) Act are
disclosed.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(33) After 4 years i.e. on 31.8.2009,
CR was registered against A. K.
Inamdar and charge-sheet has been
filed. The trial Court has discharged
the Accused Mr. A. K. Inamdar and
now the State has filed an Appeal,
which is subjudice before this Court.
(34) On 25.2.2005 Mr. A. K. Inamdar
alongwith his administrative staff
entered into the Petitioner's cabin on
the 3rd floor at the Siddharth College
of Law, and broke the entire cabin and
the Petitioner's books and personal
belongings were taken away.
(35) IO Avinash Sonawane of Azad
Maidan Police Station, did not make
any panchanama and to shield the
crimes of Shri A. K. Inamdar and his
associates; he deliberately
suppressed facts and fabricated bogus
investigation and files 'C' Summary.
(36) In May 2006 Mr. V. B. Tiwari filed
a complaint before Additional CMM, 8 th
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Court, Esplanade under Section
156(3), alleging that the Petitioner
has forged the BA degree. The MECR
No. 15 of 2006 was registered against
the Petitioner on 1.9.2006 at Azad
Maidan Police Station.
(37) The said Mr. V. B. Tiwari filed yet
another private complaint in 8th
Additional CMM's Court, wherein also
MECR bearing No.5 of 2007 and 6 of
2007 before same Court for offence
against Management and Mumbai
University, respectively.
(38) In MECR No. 15 of 2006, the
Police Authorities filed charge-sheet
and in other MECR's i.e. 5 of 2007 and
6 of 2007, the police authorities filed
'C' summary report.
(39) On 13.7.2006 Mr. V. B. Tiwari wrote a
letter to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh
and Secretary, Higher Education, Andhra
Pradesh for verification of Petitioner's
alleged bogus B. A. degree.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(40) Petitioner wrote letter to the in-
charge Principal, Shri A. K. Inamdar about
her full salary, as even though she was
NET qualified, she was not getting her full
salary. Further Mr. A. K. Inamdar replied
that "you have been given consolidated
salary, but you are not even qualified as
your BA degree is forged, bogus and that
is established beyond doubt, so we will
recover salary from you which is already
given", therefore, Petitioner annexed the
reply of Mr. A. K. Inamdar and wrote a
letter to Member Secretary of People's
Education Society Mr. D. J. Gangurde, and
he replied to the Petitioner that ignore
Mr. A. K. Inamdar's reply, but he
remained silent about payment of her
salary and dues from the college. Even
though the Petitioner was taking 18
lecturers per week, as per University
norms.
(42) On 20.7.2006 Sr. PI Mr. V. R. Shinde,
EOW received letter from Kakatia
University stating that copy of the
certificate sent along with your requisition
is not in the style and format of our
(APP(L)-91-2011)
University.
(43) On 2.7.2007 Mr. V. B. Tiwari
submitted letter dated 20.7.2006 to IO Mr.
Rajendra Zele in MECR No. 15 of 2006.
(44) On the very next day i.e. 3.7.2007 IO
Mr. Rajendra Zele sent one person Mr.
Jadhav to verify my degree to Kakatiya
University.
(45) On 4.7.2007 the the information was
received by IO Mr. Rajendra Zele that the
alleged degree is forged.
(46) On 5.7.2007 the Petitioner was called
for investigation and was detained illegally
in police custody for 12 hours even though
the Petitioner was having anticipatory bail.
(47) On 19-1-2011 Petitoner received
information from 2nd Appellate Authority
under RTI that they have not received the
letter dated 20.7.2006 from Kakatiya
University ever.
(48) On 2.1.2007 Mr. ABM Shaikh,
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Retired City Civil Judge (SD Labour Court,
Mumbai) was appointed as a
Investigating Officer by the Management
of the Siddharth College of Law, by Shri
D. J. Gangurde who is member Secretary
of the Peoples Education
Society/Siddharth College Management.
(49) On 6.3.2007 Mr. ABM Shaikh, retired
City Civilig Judge (SD Labour Court,
Mumbai) who conducted first inquiry,
issued a charge-sheet calling upon the
Petitioner to respond to the same within
two weeks of the receipt thereof.
(50) In 2007 another C. R. No. 27 of 2007
was registered against Mr. V. B. Tiwari
which is pending investigation with EOW
for last 6 years. The Complainant in that
CR is Bank of India.
(51) On 9.4.2008 Petitioner received
information under RTI from PSI Mr. Sunil
Kadam, EOW that they have neither
received any copy of the provisional
certificate of the Petitioner from Mr. A. K.
Inamdar nor it was sent to Kakatiya
(APP(L)-91-2011)
University for verification.
(52) On 24.2.2009 the College
Management appointed two ex- part time
lecturers, who were interested parties,
Mr. G. S. Govekar (Rtd. Sessions Judge)
as 3rd Inquiry Officer and Mr. B. K. Sawant
as Presenting Officer to further conduct
the Inquiry, who filed and served the
charge-sheet against the Petitioner, and
stated that they had revoked the
conclusions arrived by the first Inquiry
Officer Shri ABM Shaikh, Rtd. City Civil
Judge (SD Labour Court, Mumbai);
without assigning any reasons for the
same.
11 When these disputes were going on between Mr. A.K.
Inamdar, Mr. V.B. Tiwari on the one hand and the Petitioner
on the other hand, it appears that another incident took
place and a brief reference to the said incident is necessary
for the purpose of taking into consideration how the in-
charge Principal and Mr. V.B. Tiwari had used the said
incident to their advantage in trying to obtain information
against the Petitioner from the Kakatia University.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Mr. K.L. Bishnoi Episode
(1) On 12.3.2005 Petitioner was appointed as
examiner to conduct practical examination
including viva/oral test of 3rd year LL.B. Students at
Siddharth College of Law and the exam was
scheduled to commence at 8.30 hours and a total
number of 15 students name was typed on the list
allotted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also
noticed that the name of one more student Mr. K.
L. Bishnoi appeared in bottom of the list of students
allotted to her and the same was at serial number
Ex. 13, which was hand written along with marks
allotted in hand-writing of I/c Principal Mr. A. K.
Inamdar and even attendance sheet was sent with
the mark sheet to the Petitioner.
(2) The attendance sheet showed that there was
no signature against the name of the final year
student Mr. K. L. Bishnoi, and the Petitioner had
then also objected to marks being allotted to Mr. K.
L. Bishnoi even though she had never taken any
practical exam of the said Mr. K. L. Bishnoi and also
because he was not even present at the college on
that date at all, as the space where he was
required to sign was also kept empty and his sign
was not there. It is important to note that at this
(APP(L)-91-2011)
stage the Petitioner never knew who the said Mr. K.
L. Bishnoi was or his being a police officer, while
the same facts were in full knowledge of the said
Mr. A. K. Inamdar, college management, and also
the officials of the University of Mumbai.
(3) This is when all the troubles and harassment
of the Petitioner got more crystallised and
pronounced.
On 14.3.2005 Petitioner enquired with the
college peon and asked him to produce the said
attendance sheet and was shocked and surprised
to see that on 12.3.2010 (Saturday) when the said
sheet was submitted with in charge Principal, there
was no signature of the student at Sr. No. 16,
however, on 14.3.2010 when the said sheet was
again produced before the Petitioner, it appeared
that the student at Sr. No. 16 has signed the said
sheet.
(5) From 14.3.2005 to 17.3.2005, Petitioner
made an oral complaint with Mr. A. D. Sawant, Pro-
Vice Chancellor and Chairman of Board of
Examination.
(6) On 18.3.2005 Petitioner filed the written
(APP(L)-91-2011)
complaint to the Mumbai University, about the
bogus marks being allotted to Mr. K. L. Bishnoi
during the practical exams in final year LL.B.
Exams conducted by the Petitioner.
(7) On 1.4.2005 Mumbai University called for
explanation from Mr. A. K. Inamdar regarding the
Petitioner's complaint dated 18.3.2005 about the
bogus marks being allotted to the said Mr. K. L.
Bishnoi.
(8) On 2.4.2005 Mr. A. K. Inamdar filed his written
explanation to the University of Mumbai about
Petitioner's complaint dated 18.3.2005 about the
bogus marks allotted to Mr. K. Bishnoi by Mr. A. K.
Inamdar despite the fact that Mr. K. L. Bishnoi had
not appeared in the exams.
(9) On 6.5.2005 Mr. A. K. Inamdar addressed a
direct letter personally to Mr. K. L. Bishnoi making
allegations that the Petitioner's BA degree is
allegedly bogus and sought that the police should
inquire about its authenticity from Kakatia
University, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh.
(10) The said Mr. K. L. Bishnoi who was Additional
commissioner of Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai,
(APP(L)-91-2011)
put his remarks reflecting "URGENT" in the matter
on the same date and this shows his undue
personal interest in the case only after the
Petitioner had raised the issue of his being allotted
bogus marks at oral / practical exams.
(11) On 11.5.2005 Sr. PI Shri V. R. Shinde
forwarded the complaint to Kakatia University of
Mr. A. K. Inamdar to Mr. K. L. Bishnoi.
(12) On 17.5.2005 Kakatiya University replied that
they cannot verify the records without photocopy
of the Petitioner's alleged, bogus B.A. Degree
certificate, roll No., year of passing and demand
draft of Rs. 300/-.
(13) On 31.5.2005 Sr. PI Shri V. R. Shinde sends a
reminder letter to Kakatia University again for
verification of alleged bogus B.A. Degree of
Petitioner (without photocopy of Petitioner's B.A.
Degree certificate).
(14) On 23.6.2005 Mr. K. L. Bishnoi has sent a
letter to Kakatiya University for verification of
Petitioner's alleged bogus BA degree with his own
signature along with one API Shri Sunil Kadam and
Demand Draft of Rs. 300/-.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
(15) On 13.7.2005 Kakatiya University again sent a
letter to Sr. IP of Economic Offences Wing asking
for the copy of certificate for verification of
Petitioner's alleged bogus BA degree certificate.
(16) On 15.12.2005 again said Mr. K. L. Bishnoi
sent API Shri Patel along with letter with his own
signature to verify Petitioner's alleged bogus BA
degree verification. Petitioner received information
under RTI that Mr. Patel, API spent money from his
own pocket for stay and food etc.
(17) In April 2006 D. J. Gangurde informed the
Petitioner in writing that he has been orally
informed by the Registrar of Kakatia University
that the Petitioner has passed the B.A. Degree as
an external student in the academic year 1987-88.
(18) On 22.3.2006 Mr. V. B. Tiwari filed RTI
application with Mumbai University asking them to
produce the hall ticket and confirmation of B.A.
Degree of the Petitioner.
(19) Mumbai University informed Petitioner vide
letter dated 25.5.2006 that the Petitioner's
eligibility is confirmed by the University in
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Academic Year 1989-90 as per official records.
Mumbai University further states that original
degree is confirmed on the basis of original
marksheet certificate and migration certificate and
original sent thereafter to the concerned college.
12. The aforesaid facts have been narrated only for the
purpose of highlighting the fact as to how the Management
had proceeded in permitting two of its Staff to take
vengeance against the Petitioner who had filed complaints
after complaints against her before various authorities. In
the light of the background of the facts narrated
hereinabove, rival contentions will have to be taken into
consideration.
13. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the
Petitioner after passing her B.A. Degree examination had
taken admission for LL.B. Decree Course in Siddharth College
and, at that time, her B.A. Degree Certificate was verified.
Thereafter, after completing her LL.B. Course, she took
admission for LL.M Course and at that time also all these
Certificates were verified. Thereafter, she was appointed as
lecturer in Siddharth College after she was duly selected and
she had tendered the original B.A. Degree Certificate and
other documents which certificate and other documents were
also verified by the University of Mumbai. The Petitioner,
thereafter, was teaching in Siddharth Law College for number
(APP(L)-91-2011)
of years. It was only after the Petitioner passed her NET/SET
examination, suddenly this entire episode of the validity of
the B.A. Degree Certificate commenced. At the same time,
alleged K.L. Bishnoi incident took place. There is material on
record which shows that the Officers of Economic Offences
Wing, though they were not concerned with the complaint
which was filed at Azad Maidan Police Station and though no
assistance was sought by the said Police Station, personally
went to Kakatia University to procure the information about
the Petitioner's B.A. Degree Certificate. Though the College
all along had the original B.A. Degree Certificate of the
Petitioner, the said document was never produced either in
the charge-sheet which was filed in the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate by Mr. V.B. Tiwari or before the three Inquiry
Officers who conducted the inquiry viz Mr. A.B.M. Shaikh,
retired City Civil Court Judge, Justice P.S. Patankar, retired
Judge of the High Court, Bombay and Mr. B.S. Govekar,
retired Sessions Judge. The Presiding Officer of the College
Tribunal, on the other hand, had asked the Petitioner to
produce at least a xerox copy of he said B.A. Degree
Certificate when the Petitioner had consistently taken a stand
that xerox copy was also not available and the Progressive
Classes were closed.
14 It has been argued by Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged true
Management that the LPA is not maintainable. This
(APP(L)-91-2011)
submission is without any substance. Writ Petition was filed
by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and, as such, against the order of rejection of the Writ
Petition in limine, LPA is maintainable. The Full Bench of this
Court in Advani Oerlikon Ltd. vs. Machindra Govind Makasare
& Ors1 has observed in its judgment in para 20 as under:-
"20. Upon this discussion, we now proceed to
answer the questions formulated in the order of
reference:
Re: 1 : It is not a correct proposition in law that this
Court cannot correct jurisdictional errors or errors
resulting in miscarriage of justice committed by
authorities which are subordinate to it by invoking
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Re: 2 : It is not a correct proposition in law that
jurisdictional errors or errors resulting in miscarriage
of justice committed by subordinate
Courts/Tribunals can only be corrected by this Court
in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution. The writ of certiorari can be issued
under Article 226 of the Constitution where the
subordinate Court or Tribunal commits an error of
jurisdiction. Where the subordinate Court or Tribunal
1 2011(3) Bom.C.R.12
(APP(L)-91-2011)
acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it or fails to
exercise jurisdiction, that error of jurisdiction can be
corrected. Moreover when the Court or tribunal has
acted illegally or improperly such as in breach of the
principles of natural justice the writ of certiorari is
available under Article 226.
Re: 3 : Where the facts justify the invocation of
either Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution
to correct a jurisdictional error or an error resulting
in a miscarriage of justice committed by authorities
subordinate to this Court, there is no reason or
justification to deprive a party of the right to invoke
the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
Re: 4 : It is open to the Court while dealing with a
petition filed under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the
Constitution or a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause
15 of the Letters Patent arising from the judgment
in such a petition to determine whether the facts
justify the party in filing the petition under Article
226 and/or 227 of the Constitution.
Re: 5 : The cause title, the averments and prayers in
the petition can be taken into account while
deciding whether the petition is one under Article
226 and/or 227 of the Constitution.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Re: 6 : If the petitioner elects to invoke Article 226
and/or 227 of the Constitution and the facts justify
such invocation, a Letters Patent Appeal against the
order of the Learned Single Judge would be
maintainable even though the Single Judge has
purported to exercise jurisdiction only under Article
227 of the Constitution. The fact that the Learned
Single Judge has adverted only to the provisions of
Article 227 of the Constitution would not bar the
maintainability of such an appeal. The true test is
whether the facts justify the invocation of Articles
226 and 227 and this has to be determined on the
facts of each case having due regard to (i) the
nature of the jurisdiction invoked; (ii) the averments
contained in the petition; (iii) the reliefs sought; and
(iv) the true nature of the principal order passed by
the Single Judge. The true nature of the order
passed by the Single Judge has to be determined on
the basis of the principal character of the relief
granted. The fact that an ancillary direction has
been issued under Article 227 of the Constitution
would not dilute the character of an order as one
with reference to Article 226. What has to be
ascertained is the true nature of the order passed by
the Single Judge and not what provision is
mentioned while exercising this power.
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Re: 7 : Where a petition is filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution and the facts justify the
filing of such a petition, it is not lawful for the Court
to hold that jurisdictional errors or errors resulting in
a miscarriage of justice committed by the
subordinate Courts or Tribunals can be corrected
only by exercising powers under Article 227 (and
that the mentioning of Article 226 is redundant),
thus depriving the party of a right of appeal under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Re: 8 : When a petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution and the facts justify the filing
of such a petition, it is not open to the Court to hold
that Article 226 need not have been invoked, on the
ground that Article 227 is clothed with the power to
grant the same relief thus depriving the party of a
right to elect or choose a remedy.
Re: 9 : In a situation where a petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution and judgment is
rendered in favour of the Petitioner, recourse to an
appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not
barred to the Respondent before the Single Judge
merely on the ground that the petition was under
Article 227. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Visan
Kumar Shiv Charanlal (supra), the appeal before the
(APP(L)-91-2011)
Division Bench was filed by the Respondent to the
proceedings before the Single Judge in a petition
which had been instituted under Article 227.
Accepting the submission that a nomenclature is of
no consequence and it is the nature of the reliefs
sought and the controversy involved which
determine which Article is applicable, the Supreme
Court held that the appeal before the Division Bench
was maintainable. A similar position arose in the
decision of the Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. vs.
Commissioner of Commercial Tax (supra). The
Division Bench of the High Court had held that since
the petition before the Single Judge was under Article
227 of the Constitution, an appeal at the behest of
the Respondent to the petition was not maintainable.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not
justified in holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was
not maintainable since the High Court did not
consider the nature of the controversy and the
prayers involved in the Writ Petition."
15. In our view without going into the merits of the case at
hand, it will have to be seen whether principles of natural
justice were violated by the Inquiry Officer. Taking into
consideration the admitted facts, in our view, it is apparent
that no proper opportunity was given to the Petitioner to
represent her case before the Inquiry Officer. Apart from the
(APP(L)-91-2011)
fact that the inquiry, though it was pending for 108 weeks,
was completed practically in 3 to 4 sittings itself shows the
undue haste in which the said inquiry was completed. There
is no doubt that Division Bench of this Court had granted
extension for a period of eight weeks. It was open for the
Management to have sought further extension so as to
enable the Petitioner to properly represent herself. The
request was made to the Inquiry Officer that the inquiry may
not be held during court hours in view of number of cases
which were filed against the Petitioner in the Magistrate's
Court and in the High Court and in other forums. The said
request was declined and, as a result, when the Petitioner
was unable to attend the proceedings on account of being
busy appearing in the High Court, the Inquiry Officer abruptly
closed the inquiry on 20/03/2009 without permitting the
Petitioner to cross-examine the Management witnesses or
giving opportunity to her to examine her own witnesses. He,
thereafter, submitted inquiry report to the Management on
23/03/2009. The Notice of Motion filed by the Petitioner
seeking direction of the Court to direct the Inquiry Officer to
permit her to cross-examine the witnesses was pending
even on 20/03/2009 when he abruptly closed the
proceedings and next date was 24/3/2009. In spite of
knowing this fact, the Inquiry Officer tendered the report on
23/03/2009. When the Notice of Motion came up before the
Division Bench of this Court on 24/03/2009, the Management
did not inform the Division Bench of this Court that the
(APP(L)-91-2011)
inquiry report was already submitted by the Inquiry Officer.
Since this fact was suppressed by the Management before
the Division Bench of this Court, Division Bench allowed the
Notice of Motion filed by the Petitioner and directed the
Inquiry Officer to permit the Petitioner to cross-examine the
Management witnesses. The Inquiry Officer by letter dated
27/03/2009 told the Petitioner that she would be given an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on 30/03/2009
and no further adjournment would be given. Accordingly, the
Petitioner cross-examined two witnesses on 30/03/2009.
Surprisingly, the Inquiry Officer on the same day ie on
30/03/2009 sent a letter to the Management informing them
that he did not wish to review his earlier report which was
tendered by him on 23/03/2009 and made same
recommendations as he had made on 23/03/2009. No
opportunity whatsoever was given by the Inquiry Officer to
the Petitioner to examine her own witnesses. The said
sequence of event itself clearly discloses that there was clar
breach of principles of natural justice and also, indirectly, the
orders passed by this Court were violated. It was the duty of
the Inquiry Officer to have withdrawn his earlier report and
after the Petitioner cross-examined the Management
witnesses, he ought to have taken into consideration the said
cross-examination and submitted a fresh report. The very
fact that in his letter to the Management which was issued on
the same day on which the cross-examination was over, he
mentioned that he does not feel it necessary to review his
(APP(L)-91-2011)
own order clearly shows that he had prejudged the said
issue and was determined to make recommendations of
removal of the Petitioner. In our view, there is gross
violation of the principles of natural justice and the conduct
of the Inquiry Officer clearly shows that he had not acted in
free and impartial manner in conducting the inquiry against
the Petitioner. It is a well settled position in law that even
domestic inquiry, the Inquiry Officer as to act in just and fair
manner and though he is appointed by the Management he
should ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be
done.
The Apex Court in State of U.P and another vs. C.S.
Sharma1 has held that if no opportunity is given to the
delinquent to lead evidence, it was sufficient to vitiate the
whole proceedings. The Apex Court in para 8 of its
judgment has observed as under:-
"(8) ......... This omission in our judgment was
sufficient to vitiate the whole proceeding
because no enquiry of this type in which
there are charges of a criminal nature, can
be said to be properly conducted when the
defence of the officer is either frustrated or
ruled out."
1 AIR 1968 SC 158
(APP(L)-91-2011)
16. In our view, therefore, Presiding Officer has clearly
committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of
record in holding that there was no violation of principles of
natural justice and that the Inquiry Officer had acted in fair
and unbiased manner. The learned Single Judge also has not
taken into consideration this aspect of the case. The
Judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer and the
learned Single Judge, therefore, will have to be quashed and
set aside. The reports tendered by the Inquiry Officer dated
23/03/2009 and 30/03/2009 also will have to be
ig quashed
and set aside on the ground that proper opportunity was not
given to the Petitioner and, therefore, there was breach of
principles of natural justice and that he had prejudged the
issue and had not followed the directions given by Division
Bench of this Court in letter and spirit. We make it very clear
that we do not propose to make any comment on the merits
of the controversy at this stage.
17. In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge and Presiding Officer,
College Tribunal are quashed and set aside. Reports
tendered by the Inquiry Officer dated 23/03/2009 and
30/03/2009 are set aside and quashed. Liberty is given to
the Management to hold fresh inquiry if they so desire.
However, the Management is directed to appoint new Inquiry
Officer. The inquiry shall be completed expeditiously within
six months. Since the reports are quashed and set aside,
(APP(L)-91-2011)
the order of termination which is passed against the
Petitioner is set aside & quashed and we direct the
Management to reinstate the Petitioner with full back-wages
within eight weeks from today.
18 Appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms and
disposed of.
(P.D. KODE, J.) ig (V.M. KANADE, J.)
B.D. Pandit
