Bombay High Court
Shri Ayurved Prachar Sanstha And ... vs Vd. Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare And ... on 19 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
dgm 1 20-wp-2187-16 with caw-1041-17.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2187 OF 2016
1 Shri Ayurved Prachar Sanstha
2 Smt. K. G. Mittal Punarvasu Ayurved
College & Hospital Mr.Siddharth
Dadasaheb Gaikwad .... Petitioners
vs
1 Vd. Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare
2 The Registrar & Members of
Management Council,
Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Nashik .... Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1041 OF 2017
Shri Vd. Ramesh C. Wavare ... Applicant
In the matter of
1 Shri Ayurved Prachar Sanstha
2 Smt. K. G. Mittal Punarvasu Ayurved
College & Hospital Mr.Siddharth
Dadasaheb Gaikwad .... Petitioners
vs
1 Vd. Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare
2 The Registrar & Members of
Management Council,
Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Nashik .... Respondents
Mr. S.G. Shirsat for the petitioner in WP/2187/16.
Mr. R.G. Panchal i/by Mr. V.L. Chaudhari for the Applicant in C.A.
No.1041/17 and for Respondent No.1 in W/2187/16.
Mr. R.V. Govilkar with Heena Bhagtani for respondent No.2.
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:54 :::
dgm 2 20-wp-2187-16 with caw-1041-17.sxw
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : June 19, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai,J.):
1 The Petition challenges the decision of the Management-
Council of the Respondent-University thereby approving the decision
of the Grievances Committee dated 21 May 2015, thereby accepting
the grievances of Respondent No.1 and holding his termination dated
28 February 2014 as bad in law.
2 Respondent No.1 was initially appointed by the Petitioner
in 1991 as Lecturer in Petitioner No.1-College. Subsequently,
Respondent No.1 has been appointed as Assistant Professor and HOD.
It appears that Petitioner No.1 received certain complaints against the
Respondent and as such, memorandum of charge sheet was issued
against the Respondent No.1 on 4.3.2013 and an Inquiry Committee
was constituted. Upon the Inquiry Committee completing the inquiry,
it submitted its report to the management. The Management issued
a show cause notice to Respondent No.1 on 22.1.2014. Respondent
No.1 submitted his reply on 5.2.2014. On 28.2.2014, the Petitioners
passed an order removing Respondent No.1 from the services.
dgm 3 20-wp-2187-16 with caw-1041-17.sxw
3 The Grievance Committee of the Respondent/University
vide its report dated 21.05.2015, after hearing the Petitioners as well
as Respondent No.1 found that the order removing Respondent No.1
from services was not sustainable. The report of the Grievance
Committee came up for consideration before the Management-Council
of Respondent No.2-University. The Management-Council, after
giving an hearing to the Petitioners as well as Respondent No.1,
decided to grant approval to the report of the Grievance Committee.
Being aggrieved thereby, the present Petition is filed.
4 Mr. Shirsat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners basically argued that the Petitioner is a Minority and in
view of the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of
the Constitution of India, the State or the University Authorities
cannot have a right to interfere in its administrative decision. The
learned counsel submits that since the Petitioners who are a Minority
Institution have exercised their right to remove Respondent No.1 from
his services, upon finding that the charges are proved against him, it
was not permissible for Respondent No.2 to have interfered with the
dgm 4 20-wp-2187-16 with caw-1041-17.sxw
right of the Petitioners. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of
the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v.
State of Karnataka 1.
5 Mr. Panchal, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 as well
as Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-University
oppose the Petition.
6 No doubt that the reliance placed by the learned counsel
for the Petitioners on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) is well
merited. However, the perusal of the judgment would reveal that the
Apex Court itself in the said case has observed that for redressing the
grievances of the employees of aided and un-aided institutions, who
are subjected to punishment or termination from services, a
mechanism will have to be evolved. Their Lordships further observed
that in Their Lordships opinion appropriate Tribunals could be
constituted and till then, such Tribunals could be presided over by the
Judicial Officers of the rank of District Judge. No doubt that in the
1 2002 (8) SCC 481
dgm 5 20-wp-2187-16 with caw-1041-17.sxw
other Universities, the Tribunals are established which are presided
over by retired Judges of this Court. However, under Section 53 of the
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 a Grievance
Committee has been established for entertaining the grievances or
complaints of the employees within its jurisdiction. A detailed
procedure for entertaining such grievances has been formulated by
Direction No.5 of 2012. A Grievance Committee consists of Pro-Vice
Chancellor, four members of the Management-Council nominated by
the Management-Council and the Registrar. The report of the
Grievances Committee is subject to the final decision of the
Management-Council. We, therefore, find that it cannot be said that
the Grievance Committee which is constituted under the provisions of
the said Act cannot be said to be an appropriate forum to consider the
grievances of the employees who are terminated by the Management.
7 Though the Petitioners have not placed on record the
report of the Grievance Committee, we have examined the same
which is produced for perusal by the learned counsel for Respondent
No.1-employee.
dgm 6 20-wp-2187-16 with caw-1041-17.sxw
8 The Grievance Committee has found that the proceedings
of the Inquiry Committee were vitiated since the preliminary inquiry
which was conducted against the Respondent No.1 for collecting the
material against Respondent No.1 was conducted by the Principal
Vaidya Smt. Mangal Kshirsagar. The Grievance Committee found
that the said Smt. Kshirsagar herself was a member of the Inquiry
Committee. The Committee further found that one Advocate S. G.
Shirsat, who is a legal advisor of the Petitioners was also a member of
the Committee. It has been found by the Grievance Committee that
the said legal advisor had also advised the Petitioner-Management to
hold the departmental proceedings against the Respondent No.1. The
Grievance Committee, therefore, found that the inclusion of these two
members in the Committee was in violation of principles of natural
justice.
9 One more fact that needs to be noted and which has also
surprised us is that the said Advocate Mr. S.G. Shirsat is also
representing the Petitioners in the present proceedings. On a query as
to whether he is the same person who was the member of the Inquiry
Committee, the learned counsel fairly concedes that he was the
dgm 7 20-wp-2187-16 with caw-1041-17.sxw
Inquiry Officer and he is appearing in the present matter since he is
conversant with all inquiry proceedings.
10 To say the least, we find that the approach adopted by the
Petitioner-Management is something extraordinary.
11 We do not find that the findings of the Grievance
Committee, as have been approved by the Management-Council, can
be said to be perverse or impossible warranting interference in the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
12 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
13 In view of disposal of the writ petition, Civil Application
No.1041/2017 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) (B. R. GAVAI J.)
