Bombay High Court
Dr. Shashikala Wanjari vs Rastrasant Tukadoji Maharaj ... on 15 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3420/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3420/2015
Dr.Shashikala Wanjari,
Aged about 56 years, Associate Professor,
PGTD Education, Rashtra Sant Tukdoji
Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
Through its Registrar.
2. Board of Examination,
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University Nagpur,
through its Chairman.
3. Controller of Examination,
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
4. Disciplinary Action Committee,
Through its Chairman,
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
5. Dr.S.P. Kane,
Hon'ble Vice Chancellor (Chairman),
B.O. Examination, Rashtrasant Tukadoji
Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur.
6. Dr.Sharayu B. Tayawade,
Dean, Faculty of Arts,
Arts Commerce and Science College,
Koradi, District : Nagpur - 440 005.
7. Dr. K.C. Deshmukh,
Dean, Faculty of Science, Member
B.O. Examination, Head Department
of Mathematics, R.T.M. Nagpur
University, Nagpur.
8. Dr. Anjali Hastak,
Dean, Faculty of Law,
Shantaram Potdukhe Law College,
Tukum, Tadoba Road, Chandrapur.
9. Dr. Pramod Govindrao Yeole,
Dean Faculty of Pharmacy,
Principal, Institute of Pharmaceutical
Studies and Research, Borgaon (Meghe),
District: Wardha - 442 001.
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:26:49 :::
WP 3420/15 2 Judgment
10. Dr. Bharat Anandrao Meghe,
Dean, Faculty of Commerce,
Kamla Neharu College, Sakkardara Chowk,
Nagpur - 440 009.
11. Dr. Chandrashekhar V. Bhusari,
Dean, Faculty of Education,
Swawalambi College of Education, Wardha.
12. Dr. Ravindra V. Kshirsagar,
Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Tech.
Priyadarshani College of Engineering
and Architecture, M.I.D.C.,
Nagpur - 440 010.
13. Dr. Bhupesh Santoshrao Chikte,
Dean, Faculty of Social Science,
Karmavir Dadasaheb Deotale
Arts and Commerce College, Chamorshi,
District: Gadchiroli - 442 603.
14.
Dr. Madhuri Y. nasare,
Dean, Faculty of Home Science,
S.S. Girls College, Gondia - 441 601.
15. Dr. Babanrao Taywade,
Principal, Dhanwate National College,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur - 440 012.
16. Dr. Archana Nerkar,
Institute of Science College,
Nagpur - 440 001.
17. Dr. Anjali Rahatgaokar,
Jt. Director of Higher Education,
Zero Miles, Nagpur.
18. Dr. E.H. Kathale,
N.162, Rashimbag, Nagpur - 440 009.
19. Dr. K.S. Bharati,
Head, Department of Gandhian Thought,
Near L.A.D. College, Nagpur.
20. Shri Prashant Mohite. (DISMISSED IN DEFAULT). RESPONDENTS
Mrs. Renuka S. Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.B. Patil, counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the respondent no.11.
None for the respondent nos.5 to 10 and 12 to 19.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
: 15 TH
DATE
OCTOBER, 2016.
WP 3420/15 3 Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the contesting parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the respondent-university dated 03.06.2015 as also the notification
published by the university on 06.06.2015, debarring the petitioner from
doing the examination work for a period of one year with effect from
03.06.2015.
3. The petitioner was working as anAssociate Professor in the
Post Graduate Teaching Department of Education, Rashtra Sant Tukdoji
Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur at the relevant time when an order
was passed against the petitioner on 09.01.2015, debarring the petitioner
from doing the examination work for a period of one year in view of her
lapses while conducting the viva voce examination of M.Ed. Dissertation,
on 18.07.2013. The order dated 09.01.2015 was challenged by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.1652 of 2015 and this Court had, by the
order dated 21.04.2015 partly allowed the writ petition and permitted the
respondents to pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. After the writ petition was decided on
21.04.2015 and the order dated 09.01.2015 was quashed, the petitioner
WP 3420/15 4 Judgment
was heard by the board of examinations and the board took a decision on
03.06.2015 to debar the petitioner from doing the examination work for a
period of one year, with effect from 03.06.2015. The petitioner has
challenged the said order in the instant writ petition.
4. Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that though the order of the respondent-university is mala fide and the
petitioner could demonstrate the said fact, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside on the short ground that no reasons are recorded by the
members on the board of examinations while imposing the punishment of
debarring the petitioner for a period of one year from doing the
examination work. It is stated that the order dated 03.06.2015 is liable to
be set aside as it is sans reasons. It is stated that no reasons whatsoever
are recorded by the board while rendering the decision of debarring the
petitioner for one year and the university has published the impugned
notification solely on the basis of the decision, which is not a decision in
the eye of law.
5. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4
and Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent no.11, have
supported the order of the board of examinations and the notification of
the university. It is, however, fairly admitted by the learned counsel
that no reason is recorded by the board of examinations in the decision
WP 3420/15 5 Judgment
dated 03.06.2015, imposing the punishment of debarring the petitioner
from conducting the examination work for a period of one year. It is
stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of
the case.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the order dated 03.06.2015, it appears that the impugned
order is liable to be quashed and set aside as no reasons, whatsoever, are
recorded by the board of examinations while taking a decision of
imposing the penalty of debarring the petitioner from conducting the
examination work for a period of one year. It is well settled that it would
be necessary for an authority rendering a decision imposing penalty after
hearing the party concerned to record at least a few reasons while
imposing the punishment on the concerned party. Though there is a
reference in the impugned order that the reply and the submissions of the
petitioner were considered by the board of examinations, the impugned
order does not mention as to what submissions were made by the
petitioner before the board of examinations and how and why the board
of examinations was not in a position to accept the same. It is well settled
that an order sans reasons would not be an order in the eye of law and,
hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It would be
worthwhile to note that though the earlier order dated 05.01.2015
imposing the same punishment was not passed by the university after
WP 3420/15 6 Judgment
following the due procedure, the petitioner had to suffer the order for
almost five months, till the impugned order was passed on 03.06.2015.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE ig JUDGE
APTE
