The Registrar Dr Babasaheb ... vs Dandgule Baburao Mahadu College ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5931 Bom

                                                     *1*                           2.wp.3339.09


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                   
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 3339 OF 2009




                                                           
    1         The Registrar,
              Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada 
              University, Aurangabad.




                                                          
    2         The Principal,
              College of Social Work,
              Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
              University, Aurangabad.




                                               
                                                            ...PETITIONERS

              -VERSUS-
                                     
    Dandgule Baburao Mahadu,
                                    
    College of Social Work,
    Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
    University, Aurangabad.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT
       
    



                                       WITH
                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12670 OF 2016
                                         IN
                         WRIT PETITION NO.3339 OF 2009





            Dandgule Baburao Mahadu vs. The Registrar/ Dr.BAMU & another.

                                               ...
                          Advocate for Petitioners : Shri S S Thombre.
                         Advocate for Respondent : Shri S S Choudhari. 





                                               ...

                                           CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 10th October, 2016

Oral Judgment :

                                                        *2*                            2.wp.3339.09


    1              The   Petitioners   are   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   and   order 




                                                                                      

dated 25.06.2008 delivered by the Presiding Officer of the University and

College Tribunal in Appeal No.BAMU-12/2007 by which the said appeal

was allowed.

2 This Writ Petition was admitted by this Court by order dated

20.08.2009. No interim relief was granted.

Shri Thombre, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, has

strenuously criticized the impugned judgment by which the order dated

21.08.2007, retiring the Respondent/ Appellant from service, was set

aside and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service and

full back wages. It was also concluded that the Petitioners are at liberty to

initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the Respondent/ Employee by

following the due procedure laid down in law.

4 I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Thombre

and Shri Chaudhari, learned Advocates for the Petitioners and the

Respondent, respectively.

5 It is apparent and as has been rightly concluded by the

Tribunal that though the Respondent was an employee working as a

*3* 2.wp.3339.09

Superintendent of Petitioner No.2/ College affiliated to Petitioner No.1/

University, the Principal of the said College as well as the Registrar of the

University had signed the charge sheet. The Registrar thereafter, became a

member of the Enquiry Committee and the Principal of the said College

became a witness and her evidence was recorded in the said enquiry.

Naturally, the enquiry had to be set aside and has been rightly set aside by

the Tribunal.

A peculiar situation has occurred pursuant to the impugned

judgment. As this Court did not grant any stay to the impugned judgment,

the Respondent/ Employee was paid his entire salary from August, 2007

till 31.07.2010 when he superannuated. The Respondent, who is present

in the Court, confirms this statement twice.

7 The charges of sexual harassment were levelled against the

Respondent. These charges cannot be treated lightly. The Tribunal,

therefore, has rightly directed the Petitioners to conduct disciplinary

proceedings against the Respondent. The Respondent, who is present in

the Court, makes a statement which is confirmed by Shri Chaudhari on

two occasions that he is willing to face the enquiry if the same is

conducted as per the directions of the Tribunal.

                                                                  *4*                             2.wp.3339.09


           8                 Shri Thombre confirms, on instructions, that the Petitioners 




                                                                                                 

would ensure that the procedure laid down in law would be complied

with and proper disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against the

Respondent/ Employee.

9 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of by

recording the statement of the Petitioner and the Respondent as above.

Needless to state, the retiral benefits of the Respondent/

Employee, which have still not been paid due to the pendency of this

petition, shall be subject to the result of the enquiry.

           11                Rule is, therefore, discharged.





           12                The   pending   Civil   Application   does   not   survive   and   is, 

           therefore, disposed of.





    kps                                                            (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)