Bombay High Court
Fr. Conceicao Rodrigues Institute Of ... vs Leslie Joaquim Rodrigues on 8 January, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:659
3-wp-2819-2018.doc
SA Pathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2819 OF 2018
Fr. Conceicao Rodrigues Institute of
Technology & Ors ... Petitioners
V/s.
Leslie Joaquim Rodrigues ... Respondent
Mr. Lancy D'souza a/w Ms. Deepika Agarwa; i/by Mr.
Vishwambhar Mahadev Parkar, for Petitioners.
Mr.Vinayak R. kumbhar, for Respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 8, 2024
P.C.:
1. The petitioners are challenging order passed by the
University & College Tribunal in Appeal No.8 of 2014 on 13
October 2017, thereby directed to reinstate in service in
respondent No.1/institute with continuity in service, with full back
wages, and all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal.
2. The facts in brief of the relevant for passing of the order are
as under :
Respondent No.1 was in the employment of the petitioners
as Assistant Workshop Superintendent, for a period of 21 years.
3-wp-2819-2018.doc
The respondent No.2 was working as director. Respondents were
detained for criminal offence under Section 49(b) and 51 of the
Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioner, therefore
issued suspension order alleging misconduct committed by
respondent Nos.1 and 2. On 30 May 2013, the respondents were
intimated that the petitioners shall holding departmental inquiry
in respect of misconduct of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly,
departmental inquiry was conducted and inquiry officer submitted
his report. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on 28 May 2014 submitted
their reply to the findings of inquiry officer. On 30 June 2014,
respondents were dismissed from services by the petitioners.
3. Respondents, therefore, filed Appeal No.8 of 2014 before the
University and College Tribunal. The petitioners contested the
appeal by filing reply. After conclusion of oral arguments, the
petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their respective
arguments.
4. On 13 October 2017, the University and College Tribunal
passed the impugned judgment and order directing reinstate of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with consequential benefits.
5. The petitioners have, therefore, filed present writ petition
challenging the impugned judgment inter alia on the ground that
the reasoning stated in paragraphs 31 to 42 of the impugned order
are a reproduction of pages 11 to 21 of the written synopsis filed
by respondents, including the brackets marked in the said
synopsis, save and except for a few superficial changes in words
which in fact convey the same meaning as those used in the
3-wp-2819-2018.doc
written synopsis filed by the respondents.
6. On perusal of the impugned judgment and after scrutiny of
written submissions filed by the respondent No.1 and 2, I am
satisfied that one of the ground raised by the petitioner indicated
above is borne out of record. On careful reading of written
submissions filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, I have no doubt
that the paragraphs 31 to 42 of the impugned judgments are
nothing but reproduction of pages 11 to 21 of written submissions
submitted by the respondents, save and except for superficial
changes. It also shows that bracketed portions of the written
submissions are also copied in the judgment as it is. It is not
independent consideration of the University and College Tribunal.
Therefore, the decision making process by the University and
College Tribunal shows complete non-application of mind;
therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence,
following order:
i) The impugned judgment and order passed by the University
and College Tribunal dated 10 October 2017 in Appeal No.8 of
2014 is quashed and set aside.
ii) The Presiding Officer of the University and College Tribunal,
Mumbai is directed to reconsider the appeal of respondent Nos.1
and 2 on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in
the impugned judgment or in the present order.
iii) Considering the facts that, the services of respondent Nos.1
and 2 were terminated in 2014, the University and College
Tribunal shall decide the appeal within six months from today.
3-wp-2819-2018.doc
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No
costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
