Bombay High Court
Prof. Dr. Dilip Devidas Medhe vs Dspms K.V. Pendharkar College Of ... on 13 October, 2022
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
21-rpw-94-22 in wp-7885-16 with cont. mt..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.94 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7885 OF 2016
Prof. Dr. Dilip Devidas Medhe ...Petitioner
V/s.
DSPMS K.V. Pendharkar College of Arts
Science & Commerce, Dombivali & Ors. ...Respondents
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
WITH
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2022.10.14
13:34:38 +0530
REVIEW PETITION NO.95 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7884 OF 2016
Smt.Suvarna Jagdish Dadhakar ...Petitioner
V/s.
DSPMS K.V. Pendharkar College of Arts
Science & Commerce, Dombivali & Ors. ...Respondents
----
Mr.Rajeshwar G. Panchal a/w Mr.Mohan Rawat, Mr.Sarang
Gundajwar for the Petitioners.
Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.4-State.
Ms.Anjali P. Yajurvedi a/w Ms.Swati Sharma for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2022
P.C.
. Both these Review Petitions arise out of the common
judgment and order dated 19 May 2020 passed by this Court in
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 6
21-rpw-94-22 in wp-7885-16 with cont. mt..doc
Writ Petition Nos.7884 of 2016 and 7885 of 2016. As such
these Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The Petitioner Dr.Medhe was a member of the
teaching staff, while the Petitioner Mr.Dadhakar was the member
of the non teaching staff of the Respondent No.1-College. They
were proceeded against departmentally for the alleged
misconduct as set out in the charge-sheets against them and after
completion of the departmental proceedings they have been
dismissed. That order was challenged by the Petitioners before
the University Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by a
judgment and order dated 27 January 2016 passed in Appeal
No.23 and 24 of 2013 has dismissed the Appeals which
judgment was subject matter of challenge before this Court in
WP No.7884 and 7885 of 2016.
3. This Court after hearing the parties by the judgment
under Review, has dismissed both the Petitions.
4. I have heard Mr.Panchal, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Ms.Anjali Purav, the learned counsel appearing
for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. With the assistance of the learned
counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 6
21-rpw-94-22 in wp-7885-16 with cont. mt..doc
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted
that insofar as Review Petition No.94 of 2022 is concerned the
only ground raised is about authority of Mr.Desai in his
purported capacity as a Chairman of the Trust to issue the charge-
sheet. Insofar as Review Petition No.95 of 2022, it is submitted
that apart from the ground of authority of Mr.Desai there is one
more ground about the departmental action being taken under
the Standard Code which stood repealed and not under the
Maharashtra Civil Services Rules (for short the "MCS Rules").
Except these there are no other grounds raised.
6. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, this Court
has considered the same from paragraph No.17 onwards. This
Court has noticed that Mr.Desai became the Chairman of the
Trust from 1 November 2012, when the change report No.274 of
2013 was accepted by the authority.
7. Mr.Desai, claims to be a founder Trustee of the Trust
and became Chairman of the Trust as per Resolution dated 16
April 2012 and prior to that he was the Treasurer of the Trust.
This Court has also noted that the Resolution dated 16 April
2011 which is singed by the earlier Chairman Dr.Prabhakar Rao
was produced before the Enquiry Officer. On behalf of the
Petitioners, reliance was placed during the course of the hearing
of the Original Petitions on an extract of the PTR register issued
N.S. Kamble page 3 of 6
21-rpw-94-22 in wp-7885-16 with cont. mt..doc
on 7 December 2011. This Court has observed thus in respect of
the said extract .
"The reliance placed by the Petitioners on the PTR
extract dt. 7.12.2011 to my mind is misplaced. It is ture
that the said extract shows Mr.Prabhakar Rao as the
chairman and Mr.Prabhakar Desai as the Jt. Secretary.
However it is significant to note that the said entry is the
original entry taken as per the enquiry of the year 1972.
Merely because the certified copy is issued in the year
2011 does not show that the same position continued or
was in existence in the year 2011. To put it otherwise the
entries in the PTR register are recorded chronologically
as and when the changes which are reported as per the
provisions of the Trust Act occur in the trust. A party
can obtain a certified copy of any such entry. The date of
issuance of such certified copy, which for instance is in
respect of an old entry, may not necessarily depict the
position of the trustees as on the date of the obtaining of
the said certified copy as the said copy may be of an old
entry. It is significant to note that the change report of
the year 2013 on which heavy reliance is placed on behalf
of the Petitioners is filed by Mr.Desai in his capacity as
the chairman of the trust."
8. In these Review Petitions, reliance is placed on a
communication dated 21 July 2020 from the Public Information
Officer (PIO) of the Public Trust Office at Thane. This
document was neither before the Enquiry Officer nor before the
Tribunal or before this Court when the Petitions were heard and
decided. Thus in the Review Petitions with the limited scope
available it is not possible to place reliance on the said
communication.
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 6
21-rpw-94-22 in wp-7885-16 with cont. mt..doc
9. Coming to the ground based on the repeal of the
Standard Code, this Court has noted that the said ground was also
not raised either before the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary
Authority or before the Tribunal. Quite to the contrary a stand
was taken before the Disciplinary Authority that the charge-sheet
does not confirm to the Standard Code. It was noted that
normally this Court would be slow to entertain a plea/ground
which is not raised before the Tribunal or the Lower Authority.
However, as the parties had addressed their arguments on the said
ground the matter was considered at some length in paragraph
No.16. This Court has also noted that there was no distinction
pointed out in the procedure to be followed under the MCS rules
as against the Standard Code as the MCS Rules only contemplate
such misconduct at designated places and not outside. However,
in the present case on facts it was found that the misconduct as
alleged was on the College premises also apart from being outside
of the college premises. In that view of the matter, the ground
based on repeal of the Standard Code was negatived.
10. Reliance placed on behalf of the Petitioner on the
Division Bench decision of this Court at Nagpur in WP No.6642
of 2020 dated 29 November 2021 (Nava Yuwak Education
Society and Another V/s. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad and Others is misplaced as the said case turned on
its own facts.
N.S. Kamble page 5 of 6
21-rpw-94-22 in wp-7885-16 with cont. mt..doc
11. In my considered view the judgment under the
review does not exhibit any error apparent on the face of the
record. The Review Petitions are without any merit and are
accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
N.S. Kamble page 6 of 6
