IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 1880 OF 2011 Dattatraya Vitthalrao Balutkar, Age 61 yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o Kumbhar Galli, Ganesh Par, Parali (Vaijnath), Tq. Parali (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed. … Petitioner … Versus … 1 The Secretary, Jawahar Education Society, Parali (Vaijnath), Tq. Parali (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed. 2 The Principal, Vidyanath College, Parali (Vaijnath), Tq. Parali (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed. 3 The Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. … Respondents ... Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate h/f Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil, AGP for respondent No.3 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 01st SEPTEMBER, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:41145 2 901_WP_1880_2011 ORDER : . The services of petitioner have been terminated vide termination order dated 31.08.2008 on the ground of misappropriation of funds. The petitioner was working as Head Clerk in the college named Vaidyanath College of Arts and Commerce, Parali (V), run by respondent No.1 / Jawahar Education Society. The college is affiliated to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. The respondent-Management had issued charge sheet dated 21.05.2008 against the petitioner levelling charges, most of which are in relation to misappropriation of funds. The petitioner filed an application dated 21.05.2008 raising objection to appointment of one of the members of the inquiry committee and also made a request for providing certain records to him. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. On 29.08.2008 the local management committee of the respondent Trust passed a resolution deciding to terminate the services of the petitioner and accordingly termination order dated 31.08.2008 was issued. 2 The said order of termination was challenged by petitioner by filing appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 before the University and College Tribunal. The said appeal came to be registered as Appeal No.13/2008. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal vide impugned Judgment and order dated 14.02.2011. The said Judgment 3 901_WP_1880_2011 and order dismissing the appeal is subject-matter of challange in the present petition. 3 Learned Advocate for petitioner has vehemently argued that the inquiry is completely flawed since the statement of imputation, list of witnesses and list of documents did not accompany the charge sheet. He further states that although the inquiry committee consisted of six members, only one member has signed the inquiry report. Learned Advocate contends that the inquiry report is also not supplied to the petitioner. Apart from this, learned Advocate argued that the inquiry is completed without examining a single witness from the Management and despite this the learned Tribunal had dismissed the appeal placing reliance on documents which were not proved during the course of the inquiry. 4 Per contra, learned Advocates for respondent-Management and Principal support the order of termination. The contention is that the charge sheet was issued properly with statements of imputation, list of witnesses and list of documents. It is contended that charges were duly proved on the basis of documentary evidence. It is argued that this is the third case where the petitioner was found to be involved in acts of misappropriation of funds. 5 Learned University and College Tribunal, as stated above has 4 901_WP_1880_2011 dismissed the appeal. Perusal of findings will demonstrate that according to learned University and College Tribunal, the inquiry was held in accordance with principles of natural justice. Learned Tribunal has rejected the contention raised by the petitioner with respect to only one person of the inquiry committee signing the inquiry report stating that other members not signing the inquiry report did not result in any consequential prejudice to the petitioner. It is observed that entire record was placed before the inquiry officer and that opportunity was given to the petitioner to take inspection of the same. Learned Tribunal has observed that the inquiry report reveals that there was no record with respect to vouchers of Rs.16,400/-, Rs.11,000/-, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.11,618/- and Rs.8,000/-. It is recorded that proper entries with respect to amount spent are not taken in the books of account and that vouchers are also not retained in the file. On this account learned Tribunal has held that charge of misappropriation against the petitioner is proved and accordingly upheld the termination. 6 It must be stated that the petitioner was due for retirement on 31.08.2008 and his services are terminated on the same date i.e. on 31.08.2008. The charge sheet is issued on 21.05.2008. Perusal of the record of disciplinary inquiry will indicate that although after issuance of charge sheet, letters are obtained from some employees of the college, the said 5 901_WP_1880_2011 persons have not been examined as witnesses. Perusal of the inquiry record does not demonstrate that any witness has been examined by the Management. 7 By now it is well settled that a disciplinary inquiry is a quasi judicial proceeding. Documents, unless proved in a disciplinary inquiry cannot be ipso facto read in evidence. Documents are required to be proved by examining witnesses. Although the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not directly applicable, some evidence for scrutiny is required to be followed. The said legal position is crystallized in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow vs. Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 INSC 555. Without proving documents by examining witnesses, in the considered opinion of this Court, findings of guilt could not have been arrived at on the basis of such unproved documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, procedure adopted of obtaining letters from the employees in support of the charges cannot be a substitute for recording their evidence. Petitioner was deprived of opportunity of cross- examination of witnesses due to the process adopted by the Management. 8 In view of the aforesaid, it is required to be held that the enquiry is not fair and the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. Since the charges are not proved, there is no question of taking any penal action 6 901_WP_1880_2011 against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the order of termination cannot be sustained. 9 The learned Tribunal has clearly erred in placing reliance on inquiry report and documents which were not proved in the Departmental Enquiry in coming to conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned Judgment and order passed by learned Tribunal will have to be quashed and set aside. 10 In the result, the petition is allowed in the following terms. i) Judgment and order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad in Appeal No.BAMU-13/2008 is quashed and set aside and the said appeal is allowed by quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 31.08.2008. ii) Respondent-Management is directed to pay all terminal dues to the petitioner in accordance with law on or before 30.11.2026. iii) Respondent-Management and Principal are also directed to forward pension papers of the petitioner to the competent authority. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) agd