Bombay High Court
Shree Yogeshwari Education ... vs The Joint Director Of Higher ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
WP 5943 22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5943 OF 2022
SHREE YOGESHWARI EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH THE
SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND OTHER
...
Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. R. M. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.
Kute Rajendra.
A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1: Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar.
Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 :Mr. Amol Joshi
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 27.06.2022.
PER COURT :
Heard the arguments of both the sides on the point of admission.
2. The petitioner-Management is challenging the judgment and order
passed by the Presiding Officer of the University and College Tribunal,
Aurangabad dated 01.04.2022 whereby the respondent No.3's appeal
preferred under Section 82 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act,
2016 has been allowed thereby quashing and setting aside the order of
termination issued by the petitioner on the basis of a disciplinary
proceeding initiated under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeals) Rules,1979.
3. The genesis of the dispute is in the form of a written complaint of
a girl student who was studying in the first year of M.Com. course in the
petitioner's college dated 12.03.2018. The respondent No. 3 was the
head of the Commerce Department. She inter alia alleged about he
having asked her if she was willing to attend a conference at Aurangabad
which was to take place on 09.03.2018 and 10.03.2018. When she
WP 5943 22.odt
expressed inability due to financial condition he assured her to pay the
fees and even later on in the afternoon told her about having paid the
charges. She thereafter alleged that on 08.03.2018 he asked her to be
ready by 4 p.m. She boarded his car at Kaij at around 4 p.m. Couple of
other girls were also travelling in the car. She alleged that after coming
to Aurangabad the two girls were dropped at the place of their relatives
and she was taken to a hotel. She also alleged that he alighted from the
car in front of the hotel and returned back in five minutes. He asked her
to tell her name as Gita at the hotel if she was asked to. He then took
her to a room where there was only a single bed. He also told her that
they would be spending the night in that room. She realised that the
room was booked for the occupation by him and his wife Gita. She then
suspected of some foul play and messaged her friend expressing her
apprehension. Her friend then called him and asked him to drop her to
her place. She thereafter stayed with her friend in the night and
returned to her native the next morning. She also alleged that during
that period he had made several calls to her but she did not respond.
She then requested for taking strict action against him and also
intimated that she would file a police complaint.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Internal Complaints Committee
under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 took over the grievance. His
statement was recorded. Independently, the petitioner decided to
proceed against him and the disciplinary enquiry was initiated.
Statements of imputation were served, the charge was recorded,
evidence was led and after hearing the arguments he was held guilty. By
the order under challenge before the University and College Tribunal he
was terminated.
5. One need not delve much but bear in mind that considering the
entire scenario, irrespective of the ultimate conclusion, the charges were
WP 5943 22.odt
serious. A girl student was taken to Aurangabad in a car and was even
taken to a lodge and even it was expressed by the respondent No. 3 that
they would be spending the night in the room at the lodge where there
was a single bed. Besides, even according to the respondent No. 3, he
was intending to attend the conference as a private individual and not as
a faculty member of the college and had not given any intimation about
it to the Principal.
6. Though the victim was not examined as a witness during the
disciplinary enquiry, the respondent No. 3 has been referring to a
circumstance whereby a written communication dated 19.03.2018 of the
victim subsequently sought to withdraw her complaint. Bare look at the
contents of the communication would reveal that she reiterated about
having filed the complaint against the respondent No. 3 and the enquiry
into it was going on but the respondent No. 3 along with his wife had
come to her house and met her and her father at Kallam and even
tendered apology and assured that the incident would not be repeated
and she was, therefore, seeking to take back the complaint.
7. Considering all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and
the material that was before the Enquiry Officer, in my considered view
the Writ Petition deserves to be admitted and operation of the impugned
order since it directs reinstatement deserves to be stayed.
8. Admit.
9. Execution and operation of the judgment and order of the
University and College Tribunal is stayed till final decision of the Writ
Petition.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
