IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3779 OF 2022 Smita Pramod Patil VERSUS The Registrar North Maharashtra University Mr. A. S. Shelke, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S. R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 07th April, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This is a peculiar case wherein the Authorities of North Maharashtra University in utter disregard of order of College and University Tribunal, Jalgaon passed order against the petitioner withholding 4 increments of the petitioner permanently. Office order dated 19.09.2011 clearly indicates that the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to the order passed by University and College Tribunal dated 04.02.2011. Though, there was a direction of withholding 4 increments of the petitioner, in apparent willful disobedience of the said order increments of the petitioner were withholding permanently. Seriousness of the issue is aggravated with the fact that petitioner made representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University pointing out that there is no order of withholding the 4 increments permanently and in spite of pointing out the said position, the order dated 19.09.2011 was not withdrawn 6-WP-3779-2022.odt 1 of 5 and the petitioner was punished withholding of increments permanently. 2. In the light of these facts, petitioner was left with no other option but to move proceedings before the Tribunal seeking review of the order to seek clarification that there is no order of withholding 4 increments permanently. Tribunal dismissed Review Petition bearing No. 1/2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, present petition. 3. Tribunal though has held that it has jurisdiction to hear and decide review application however, rejected the contention of the petitioner for review. In fact, perusal of the order impugned shows that the application for review has been rejected essentially on the ground that there is delay in filing of the same. Learned Tribunal however failed to take into consideration the circumstances in which the said application was required to be filed. 4. Record indicates that the petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal from service before the University Tribunal. Tribunal by order dated 04.02.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal dated 27.08.2009. Tribunal was of the view that the punishment of withholding of 4 increments would be sufficient punishment to be imposed against the petitioner. Accordingly, order came to be passed. Instead of implementing the order passed by the Tribunal, University proceeded to pass order dated 6-WP-3779-2022.odt 2 of 5 19.09.2011 withholding 4 increments of the petitioner permanently. Petitioner, therefore, approach to the Vice chancellor by preferring an appeal. It was pointed out therein that Tribunal has never directed withholding of 4 increments permanently and in spite of the same, increments are withheld. In spite of accepting the mistake, the University rejected the said appeal and communicated the said order to the petitioner on 23.06.2012. There is one more facet to this case, i.e., the superior of petitioner is held to be guilty of the misconduct, and was imposed punishment of withholding of 2 increments. There is no dispute about the fact that the said employee has accepted that the act done by petitioner for which she is punished, has been done at his instance. Thus, petitioner found that there is discrimination caused by University in imposing punishment on two set of employees. 5. Learned University Tribunal ought to have considered these facts and sought explanation from University and if necessary could have issued notice of contempt against the University and the person responsible for willful disobedience of the order of Tribunal. Instead, conduct that on technicality the application for review came to be rejected. Even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that no review was required to the order passed by the Tribunal, in respect of the order dated 04.02.2011, the subsequent events which have occurred necessitate such clarification. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have 6-WP-3779-2022.odt 3 of 5 allowed the Review Application by clarifying that the direction of withholding of 4 increments was not with permanent effect. Non clarification of the order has led to miscarriage of justice. 6. The order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot sustain and the same is set aside. Review Application bearing No. 1/2017 stands allowed. In order to ensure that no injustice is caused to the petitioner, it is clarified that there is direction of Tribunal of withholding of 4 increments and the same shall not be construed as withholding of 4 increments permanently. 7. As noted in the beginning of this order, there is apparent willful disobedience of the order of the Tribunal. Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of the learned counsel for respondent that Tribunal has not taken any action in this regard and hence this Court not to enter upon the said issue. If the High Court notices any willful disobedience of the order of any Court or Tribunal, the said fact cannot be ignored. Here, in this case, there is reason to believe that in order to cause harassment of the petitioner, order came to be passed of withholding of 4 increments permanently. Seriousness of issue aggravates further, when in spite of pointing out order of Tribunal, the concerned Authority justifies the order of punishment of withholding 4 increments permanently. This Court is of prima facie view that this order has been passed in willful disobedience of the order of the Tribunal. 6-WP-3779-2022.odt 4 of 5 8. Learned counsel for respondent was called upon to name the person who is responsible for passing of the said order. From the documents, it was pointed out that Dr. Shri. A. M. Mahajan has passed the said order. Hence, issue simple notice to Dr. Shri. A. M. Mahajan why action under contempt of Court Act shall not be initiated. Though the petition is allowed, proceedings are kept pending for the purpose of passing appropriate further orders. Notice is made returnable on 28.04.2025. 9. Registry to ensure that the notice is served upon the concern before the next date of hearing. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) bsj 6-WP-3779-2022.odt 5 of 5