Bombay High Court
Vikrant Halkandar vs Pravin Gandhi College Of Law, ... on 5 December, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2022.12.09
10:10:45
+0530
46 wp-1542-22.doc
BDP-SPS-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1542 OF 2022
Vikrant Halkandar ..... Petitioner.
V/s
Pravin Gandhi College of Law
and Anr. ..... Respondents.
-----
Mr. Rahul Singh a/w Ms. Pranali Raut and Ms. Varsha Salunke i/b
Legal Catalyst for the Petitioner.
Ms. Manorama Mohanty i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
-----
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE: DECEMBER 05, 2022
P.C.:-
1] Heard.
2] Petition questions the observations made in the order dated
06/01/2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and
College Tribunal, Mumbai.
3] Tribunal was dealing with the prayer of Respondent-
Management for grant of extension of time for concluding
departmental inquiry. While granting such prayer, moved by
Respondent-Management, Tribunal has observed that the issue of
completion of probation and permanency will be dependent on the
46 wp-1542-22.doc
outcome of the inquiry. It is further observed that said issue can be
independently decided in accordance with law.
4] We are informed that after time was extended by the Tribunal,
inquiry proceedings were culminated into issuance of termination
order to the Petitioner, which he has independently challenged before
the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai.
5] It appears that the Petitioner-employee has approached the
Tribunal alleging that he being permanent employee, ought not to
have been terminated without following due process of law i.e. by
conducting enquiry. While dealing with said issue, Tribunal in its
order dated 20/3/2019 in Appeal No.26 of 2018 has observed in para
35 as under:-
"(35) Accordingly, in view of the Regulation No.11.1
and 11.2 of the UGC Regulations dated 30 th June
2010, and the above referred judgment of Bombay
High Court dated 3rd August 2016, the Appellant /
Applicant has attained the status of permanent
Assistant Professor on the date of expiry of one year
probation from the date of his appointment i.e. on
2nd January, 2016, and therefore the service of the
Appellant/ Applicant cannot be terminated on the
ground of alleged unsatisfactory performance,
without conducting inquiry into those allegations
against the Appellant / Applicant, and hence, the
impugned letter / notice of termination dated 29 th
August, 2018, issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 and
2, to the Appellant / Applicant without conducting
such inquiry, is erroneous, unlawful and bad in law,
46 wp-1542-22.doc
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."
6] From the above contention, it can be noticed that Tribunal has
observed that Petitioner needs to be proceeded against through
departmental enquiry as he is a permanent employee and on the other
hand, while deciding issue of grant of extension of time to complete
enquiry has observed that issue of permanency and the completion of
probation can be looked into independently.
7] As such, it is claimed by the Counsel for the Petitioner that
observations made are contrary, which appears to be supported by
observations made in order dated 20/3/2019. Apart from above once
the Respondents have held the enquiry proceedings, it leads to the
inference that Petitioner was a confirmed employee.
8] In this backdrop, this Petition can be disposed of by recording
finding that issue as to the legality and validity of termination of
service of the Petitioner be decided by Tribunal afresh in pending
appeal preferred by the Petitioner without influenced by reasoning
recorded in the order impugned dated 6/1/2022 while deciding the
prayer for extension of time in Misc. Application No.2021 in Appeal
No.26 of 2018.
9] Petition stands partly allowed in the above terms.
[ SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ]
