Bombay High Court
Vspm Academy Of Higher Education, ... vs Vasant S/O Ganpatrao Lad And ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 58.wp.1272.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1272 OF 2020
VSPM Academy of Higher Education, Nagpur through its President/Secretary and
another
Vs.
Vasant s/o Ganpatrao Lad and another
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. B. A. Bhendarkar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 10/08/2022
1. Heard Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Bhendarkar, learned counsel for
the respondent no.1.
2. The petition challenges the judgment dated
27.9.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and
College Tribunal, Nagpur, whereby the order of dismissal
dated 24.11.2016 of the respondent, is set aside, and the
respondent has been directed to be reinstated for the
limited purpose of completing the departmental enquiry
from the stage of appearance of appellant before the
Enquiry Officer allowing him to raise all the defenses to
contest the charges. It is further directed that the period
from dismissal and reinstatement of the appellant till
conclusion of the departmental enquiry, be treated as
(2) 58.wp.1272.2020
period under suspension and the enquiry was directed to
be concluded within six months preferably.
3. Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the impugned order has been
passed only on two grounds, the first being that the
handwriting experts opinion in respect of the
communication dated 13.1.2016, under which the
respondent claims to have admitted the charges, has not
been proved and not put to the test of cross-examination
as it is a document, which cannot be accepted on its face
value. The second ground was that no proper
opportunity was given to the appellant to represent
himself in the departmental enquiry. Mr. Marpakwar,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the
findings are incorrect as the respondent would have an
opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert
before the learned Tribunal.
4. I am afraid, I am not able to agree with this
contention for the reason that under Section 82 of the
Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred as 'the Act of 2016) the powers which are vested
in the tribunal for hearing and deciding of appeals are
that of an Appellate Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure. No doubt, that under Section 82(2) of the
Act of 2016, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, is
empowered to decide the procedure to be followed for
(3) 58.wp.1272.2020
deciding the proceeding before it, the same would be
subject to the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Act of
2016. In the instant matter, what has been done is the
remand of the matter before the Enquiry Officer, before
whom it would be permissible for the petitioner to place
the report of the handwriting expert and so also for the
respondent to cross-examine him vis-a-vis the signature
claimed to have been made upon the communication
dated 13.1.2016 (page 22) as well as in the proceedings
as recorded on 24.8.2016 (page 32).
5. That being the position, I do not feel it
appropriate to interfere with the impugned order to the
extent it set asides the order of dismissal and remit the
matter to the Enquiry Officer. However, the period in
which the departmental enquiry, shall be decided is
restricted to three months from 1.9.2022.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
JUDGE
Sarkate
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE
Signing Date:11.08.2022
17:05
