8-WP-7228-2003 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2003 Dilip Manohar Khadtare ...Petitioner Versus The Secretary- Rayat Shikshan Sanstha And Ors. ...Respondents **** Mr. Kishore Malpathak with S.N. Pillai for the Petitioner. Mr. Dilip Manohar Khadtare, Petitioner is present in the court. None for Respondents. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 05.06.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Pune/ Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No. 3 of 2001. By the said impugned order, the Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed. The Petitioner had filed the said appeal challenging his termination dated 27.03.2001. BACKGROUND 2. The case of the Petitioner in short is as under. 2.1. That he joined services of Respondent No. 1 as a lecturer in Botany on 16.01.1991 and was thereafter transferred at various locations in various colleges run by Respondent No. 1/Institute. That on 01.07.1996, he was transferred to Arts, Science and Commerce College, Malkapur, Tal. Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur which was an unaided college. Sneha Chavan 1 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.10.01 10:42:39 +0530 8-WP-7228-2003 @.doc 2.2. That though he reported to the Principal at Malkapur College, he was not allowed to join the duty and was asked to bring a written letter from the Management stating that Respondent No. 1/Sanstha will bear the salary. 2.3. That he met the Secretary of the Respondent-Institute, requesting such letter; however, he was again asked to join the duty. That he again went to the Principal of the college at Malkapur for joining duty, but again, a letter stating that Sanstha will bear the salary was insisted. 2.4. That the Petitioner then gave a letter to the Chairman of Respondent No. 1/Sanstha and he has promised that the issue will be discussed with the Secretary. 2.5. That he brought his family to Malkapur and started residing in the rented premises and again reported to the principal of the college, but was not allowed to join. According to the Petitioner, even then he conducted classes from 08.07.1996 but since he was frustrated by the unjust treatment at the hands of the Management, on 19.07.1996 he forcibly signed on the muster roll for a period between 01.07.1996 to 19.07.1996 (19 days). 2.6. That when the report of forcible signing on muster roll was sent, the Respondent/Management asked the principal not to permit the Petitioner to join the duty. 2.7. According to the Petitioner, by a written letter dated 02.09.1996 on the letter head of the Respondent/Management sent through Registered Post, the Petitioner was given a without prejudice opportunity to report to the Collage at Malkapur and join duty, if he does so before 11.09.1996. Accordingly he joined and was allowed to sign muster roll from 09.09.1996. 2.8. That the Respondent/Management then passed a Resolution to appoint preliminary inquiry committee for conducting inquiry against Sneha Chavan 2 8-WP-7228-2003 @.doc the Petitioner. However, no action was taken for a long time. 2.9. That in 1997 the Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 4018 of 1997 in respect of transfer to unaided institute, restoration of seniority and arrears of salary. On 05.05.2000, the petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, directing the Respondent/Management to pay arrears of salary to the Petitioner as per prescribed Government scale for a period from 01.06.1996 to 31.01.2000 within 6 months after deducting amount already paid. 2.10. According to the Petitioner, this has triggered the appointment of inquiry officer on 07.06.2000 for the alleged misconduct taken place about 4 years ago in respect of signing the muster roll forcibly. 2.11. That inquiry officer was appointed, chargesheet was given to the Petitioner and on report of inquiry officer dated 20.11.2000 holding the Petitioner guilty of all four charges, he was terminated under Order dated 27.03.2001. 2.12. Therefore the Petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and the Tribunal by impugned order has dismissed the Appeal. 2.13. In these circumstances, the Petitioner approached this Court and filed this petition. 3. The petition was admitted on 19.01.2004. No interim relief is granted. As per the office note, Rule notice has been served upon the Respondents including the Management and the College. Name of the Advocate is appearing on causelist for Respondent No.1/Management. However, nobody is appearing for the Respondent/Management. Advocate for the Petitioner has also filed an affidavit of service placing on record a copy of recent notice dated 25.03.2026 and copy of postal acknowledgment of the Respondent/Management. The same is taken on Sneha Chavan 3 8-WP-7228-2003 @.doc record and marked “X” for identification. SUBMISSIONS 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Malpathak, invited attention of the Court to various documents produced on record. He submitted that this is a clear case of victimization where after sending him to an unaided institute, the Petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for the purpose of mere joining the duties. He submitted that from the dates and events, it can be clearly seen that though an opportunity was given to the Petitioner to join the services before 11.09.1996 and though he indeed joined duty on 09.09.1996, Charge Nos. 1 and 2 (dealing with absenteeism and not joining duties) are held against him. He further submitted that from mere chronology of events, it can be seen that for the alleged misconduct in 1996, the actual inquiry was conducted after a delay of 4 years, apparently after this Court passed an order directing the Management to pay the arrears. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the legality of the inquiry committee's decision. He further submitted that considering time for which the Petitioner has served (more than 10 years) though Petitioner has reached the age of superannuation about 3 years ago, still his pensionary benefits are affected and the petition requires consideration on merits. He submitted that many documents produced by him are neither considered by the inquiry committee nor by the Tribunal. He fairly conceded that apparently advocate for the Petitioner has given concession before the Tribunal about restricting the argument only for double punishment; however, he urged that legality of the decision of the inquiry committee and consequent termination, ought to have been tested on merits. REASONS AND CONCLUSION Sneha Chavan 4 8-WP-7228-2003 @.doc 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. A copy of the letter dated 02.09.1996 issued on the letter-head of Respondent / Management is produced by the Petitioner along with petition at Exhibit B-5. Its copy was sent for information to the Principal of the College at Malkapur. Indeed, after narrating the alleged incident in the Collage at Malkapur on 19.07.1996, apparently, the Management had given an opportunity to the Petitioner to report to duty before 11.09.1996, albeit without prejudice to contentions of the Management. If that be so, Charge Nos. 1 and 2 which are about not remaining present till 08.09.1996 cannot be considered as serious enough as to entail major punishment. 7. So far as Charge Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, which are in respect of forcible signing on the muster roll, the impugned judgment does not discuss anything about it on merits or about legality of decision taken by inquiry committee. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the aspect of double punishment and delay in initiating inquiry. 9. The Tribunal has recorded that no argument was advanced about the process and procedure adopted by the inquiry committee. No arguments are advanced even in this petition, so far as the procedure adopted by inquiry committee is concerned. 10. However, the impugned order does not consider the merits of inquiry committee’s decision and consideration of documents on record Sneha Chavan 5 8-WP-7228-2003 @.doc for conclusion about legality of the findings and legality of the consequent action of termination. 11. About the long delay in initiating inquiry, the Tribunal has only held that there are no financial loss to the Petitioner because he was paid his salary during the period of inquiry and was never suspended. However, no other reason for delay has been considered, especially as to whether delay of 4 years has been explained or not. Apparently, decision to conduct inquiry was taken in meeting dated 30.11.1996, but the inquiry officer was appointed on 07.06.2000 only after the order of this Court dated 05.05.2000. Why inquiry was not conducted immediately after decision to do so, is not explained. 12. In Deorao Tukaram Sawle v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2012 (1) Bom.C.R. 864 relied upon by the Petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has found that delay has vitiated the inquiry. Also in Amresh Shrivastava v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that though the consideration may vary from case to case, unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the concerned department or institute, the answer must go in favour of the employee. These two judgments clearly support the case of the Petitioner. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons indicated above, I am inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order. 14. At this stage, on a clear query by the Court, learned Counsel Sneha Chavan 6 8-WP-7228-2003 @.doc for the Petitioner, stated on instructions of the Petitioner (who is present in the Court) that considering the long lapse of time during pendency of the petition, the Petitioner will not press back-wages from 28.03.2001 (next day of termination), if the matter is directed to be reconsidered by the Tribunal on merits. Statement is recorded. 15. In the result, the petition succeeds partly. Writ Petition is disposed of and Rule is made partly absolute by passing following order. (i) The impugned order dated 05.06.2002 passed by the Tribunal, is set aside. Appeal No.3 of 2001 is restored to the file. The concerned Tribunal is directed to consider the said appeal afresh, in accordance with law, only for the purpose of testing legality of the inquiry proceedings and its conclusion and consequent termination of the Petitioner with its effect on Petitioner’s entitlement for pension. All contentions in that regard are kept open. (ii) It is clarified that the aspect of back-wages from the aforesaid date shall be excluded from consideration. (iii) Considering long pendency of the dispute, the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from presentation of this order. 16. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 7