Bombay High Court
Smt. Mulibai Charkha Shikshan ... vs Dr. Leena Ramprasadji Chitlange ... on 22 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 lpa13.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.13/2015
IN WRIT PETITION NO.2240/2011 (D)
1. Smt. Mulibai Charkha Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Washim through its President,
Risod Road, Lakhala, Washim, Tq. and
Dist. Washim.
2. Savitribai Phule Mahila Mahavidyalaya,
Washim, Dist. Washim. .....APPELLANTS
ig ...V E R S U S...
1. Dr. Leena Ramprasadji Chitlange,
aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o 'Radheya', Gade Layout, Lakhala,
Washim, Dist. Washim.
2. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University,
through its Registrar, Dist. Amravati.
3. Presiding Officer, University and
College Tribunal Amravati at Nagpur.
4. Joint Director, Higher Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. L. Khapre, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Ms. T. Udeshi, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :-
AUGUST 22, 2016
2 lpa13.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. GAVAI, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of
the parties.
2. The present appeal challenges the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2012 thereby partly allowing the
appeal filed by respondent no.1 herein. The respondent no.1 herein
was initially appointed as Lecturer in Smt. Vatsalabai Naik Mahila
Mahavidyalaya, Pusad. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by
the present appellant, she had applied for the post of Principal in
appellant no.2-College. In the selection process, she was selected
and appointed by order dated 20.10.2007. She had kept her lien on
the post of the Lecturer in the previous college and joined as
Principal in the appellant no.2-College on 28.02.2008.
3. The appointment of the respondent no.1 as Principal of
the College was on probation of two years commencing from the date
of her joining i.e. 28.02.2008. However, vide communication dated
30.01.2009, the respondent no.1 was informed that in spite of
granting ample opportunity to her to improve her work and
behaviour, there was no improvement in her work and behaviour
3 lpa13.15.odt
and, therefore, the management i.e. the appellant no.1 passed a
resolution in the meeting dated 29.01.2009 and has decided to
terminate her services w.e.f. 31.01.2009. Being aggrieved thereby,
an appeal came to be preferred by the respondent no.1 therein before
the learned University and College Tribunal, Nagpur being Appeal
No. A-1/2009. The learned Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal in
the elaborate judgment and order dated 28.03.2011, partly allowed
the appeal of the respondent no.1 and passed the following order:
"The impugned order of termination of the
appellant dated 30-1-2009 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The appellant is treated as reinstated on the said
post on that day. However, she would only be entitled for
back wages in full or in part, depending upon the result of
enquiry, as per following direction;
The respondent No.1 and 2, if desired, can start
enquiry against the appellant for her alleged misconduct,
within a period of two months from today. The same shall be
conducted by the independent Enquiry Officer and shall be
completed within a period of six months from the issuance of
charge sheet, if any, to the appellant.
The appellant shall be entitled to apply for the
back wages, independently, depending upon the result of the
enquiry, for full or in part a fresh."
4 lpa13.15.odt
4. Being aggrieved thereby, the aforesaid writ petition came
to be filed by respondent no.1 herein. It will be relevant to note that
there were various observations made by the learned tribunal
adversely affecting the rights of the present appellants and as such
the present appellants had also filed cross-objection in their written
statement. Needless to state that the appellants had paid requisite
court fees of Rs.250/-, which was the fee at the relevant time for
filing of the writ petition. The learned single Judge vide order dated
15.03.2012 had partly allowed the petition and passed the following
order:
"17. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The
order passed by the college Tribunal setting aside the order
of termination dated 30-1-2009 of the petitioner is
maintained. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in
service as Principal of respondent No.2/College within a
period of thirty days from the date of this judgment.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Management are granted liberty
to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of misconduct, if
any, against the petitioner and the question of payment of
back wages shall be decided by the respondent/
Management on the basis of the outcome of the proceedings
of the enquiry."
Perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court and particularly paragraph 3 would reveal
5 lpa13.15.odt
that the learned Single Judge has noticed that the cross-objection has
been filed by the present appellant challenging the order granting
reinstatement till the completion of the probation period. However,
perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Single
Judge has not at all taken into consideration the grounds raised in
the cross-objection.
5. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned
order is not tenable in law. No doubt that elaborate legal submissions
are made on behalf of both the parties. However, we find that it will
not be necessary to consider the same inasmuch as the said
submissions are not taken into consideration by the learned Single
Judge of this Court.
6. In the result, the letters patent appeal is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition
No.2240/2011 filed by the respondent no.1 as well as the cross-
objection filed by the appellants herein are remitted back to the
learned Single Judge for decision afresh on merits. Since the petition
is of the year 2011, we request the learned Single Judge to decide the
same expeditiously.
6 lpa13.15.odt
So far as the amount of Rs.50,000/- which is deposited in
this Court by the appellants is concerned, the learned Single Judge at
the time of decision of the said writ petition shall pass an appropriate
order regarding entitlement of the said amount.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. R. Gavai, J.)
kahale
7 lpa13.15.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale. Uploaded On:29.08.2016
