The R C Patel Educational Trust ... vs Dilip Suklal Borse
2016 Latest Caselaw 5371 Bom

                                                                      WP/9699/2016
                                            1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                              
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 9699 OF 2016




                                                      
     1. The R.C.Patel Educational Trust
     Shirpur, Dist. Dhule, through
     its Secretary.




                                                     
     2. The principal,
     R.C.Patel Arts, Commerce and
     Science College, Shirpur,
     Dist. Dhule                                       ..Petitioners




                                          
     Versus

     Dilip Suklal Borse
                             
     Age 59 years, Occ. Service
     R/o Vidhya Varddhani Colony,
     Shirpur, District Dhule.                          ..Respondent
                            
                                           ...
                       Advocates for Petitioners : Shri Bagul D.S.
                       Advocate for Respondent : Shri Talhar Ajay
      

                                           ...

                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: September 19, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition

is taken up for final disposal.

WP/9699/2016

4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2016

passed by the University Tribunal, thereby declining to frame a

preliminary issue with regard to whether the departmental enquiry

conducted by the petitioners against the respondent was fair and

proper.

5. Shri Bagul, learned Advocate for the petitioners strenuously

submits that akin to industrial jurisprudence, the University Tribunal

is required to frame an issue as to whether the enquiry conducted by

the petitioners is vitiated or not and whether the findings of the

enquiry committee are perverse or not. If the enquiry is vitiated for

any reason whatsoever, the petitioners have a right to conduct a de

novo enquiry before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the

petitioners have specifically reserved their rights to conduct a de

novo enquiry in their written statement, in the light of the ratio laid

down by the Honourable Supreme Court (Five Judges' Bench) in the

matter of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs.

Laxmidevamma & another [AIR 2001 SCW 1981].

6. Shri Bagul further submits that Sections 60 and 61 of the

Universities Act, 1994 vests the Tribunal with the powers to record

evidence. As such, if the enquiry is vitiated, the management can

prove the charges by conducting a de novo enquiry before the

University Tribunal. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of

WP/9699/2016

this Court in the matter of Sheshrao Wankhede's 56th Birthday

Foundation and others Vs. Pratibha Uttamrao Gadwe [2005 (3)

Mh.L.J. 304], to support his contention that this Court has ruled

under the Universities Act that once the enquiry is held to be

vitiated, the management should be allowed to conduct a de novo

enquiry before the University Tribunal.

7. Shri Talhar, learned Advocate for the respondent has opposed

the petition. Contention is that Industrial jurisprudence cannot be

made applicable to the University Tribunals, which exercises powers

as an appellate Court and not as a trial Court. He submits that the

learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Gurumaharaj

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Jalindar Mahadeo Kedar [2006 (2)

Mh.L.J. 748], has concluded that the School Tribunal under the MEPS

Act cannot be equated with the Labour Court and the Tribunal cannot

be said to be a trial Court to record oral evidence by permitting the

management to conduct a de novo enquiry.

8. He further submits that the final arguments in the matter

before the University Tribunal have already commenced. During the

course of advancing final submissions, the petitioners have filed the

application which has been rightly rejected by the University

Tribunal.

WP/9699/2016

9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

and I have gone through the reports cited. The proceedings before

the University Tribunal are at the stage of advancing final

submissions. In fact, the appellant has already commenced

advancing final submissions. In this backdrop, I deem it proper to

permit the litigating sides to canvass all contentions so as to enable

the Tribunal to decide the same while deciding the appeal.

10.

As such, this petition is disposed off with liberty to the

litigating sides to raise all legal contentions and canvass their

respective averments set out in their pleadings so as to enable the

University Tribunal to decide the appeal in the light of their

contentions. Needless to state that this Court has not dealt with the

merits of the matter and the University Tribunal shall decide the

same on it's own merits.

11. Rule is discharged accordingly.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

...

akl/d