BHAURAO SHANKAR KHUTEversusTHE SECRETARY CENTRAL HINDU MILITARY EDUCATION SOC. AND ORS

                                                                                  -WP-3947-2026.DOC

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 2026

                      Bhaurao Shankar Khute                                           ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                      The Secretary, Central Hindu Military Education           …Respondents
                      Society, Nashik Division, Nashik and Ors

                      Mr. Prashant D Patil, for the Petitioner.

                                                    CORAM:          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                    DATE :          10th APRIL 2026


                      ORDER:

                      1.     Heard Mr. Prashant Patil, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

                      2.     This Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

                      assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order

                      dated 21st March 2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Savitribai

                      Phule, Pune, Shivaji and Solapur University and College Tribunal, Pune
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
                      (“the University Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 4 of 2019 preferred by the
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.04.16
                      Petitioner under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act,
22:18:09 +0530


                      2016 (“the Act, 2016”) against an order dated 7th February 2019 of

                      dismissal from service passed by Respondent No.1, the Employer/

                      Disciplinary Authority.

                      3.     Respondent No.1 runs Bhonsla Military College, Nashik (R2). The

                      Petitioner joined R2 as a peon on 1 st October 1993. Disciplinary

                      proceedings were instituted against the Petitioner on the grounds of (a)

                      ARS                                     1/8
                                                          -WP-3947-2026.DOC

absenteeism, (b) temporary misappropriation of money entrusted to the

Petitioner and (c) indulging in corruption by accepting money from the

parents of the wards on the pretext of securing admission in the Bhonsla

Military College (R2).

4.     A charge-sheet was served on the Petitioner on 1st January 2018.

The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. During the course of which

Dattatraya Rangnath Nirgude, came to be examined as the Employer's

witness. The Enquiry Officer, post conclusion of the enquiry, submitted a

report finding the Petitioner guilty of the misconduct for which he was

charged. A copy of the Enquiry Report was served on the Petitioner.

5.     After considering the reply, the Employer (R1), by an order dated

7th February 2019, imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service,

with effect from 11th February 2019.

6.     Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the

University Tribunal.

7.     By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding

Officer, University Tribunal, found no reason to interfere with the

penalty imposed by Respondent No.1. It was found that the enquiry was

conducted after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the

Petitioner and in accordance with the rules and fundamental principles

of natural justice. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were also

found to be based on evidence. Thus, neither the enquiry was vitiated


ARS                                    2/8
                                                          -WP-3947-2026.DOC

nor the findings were perverse, held the University Tribunal. Even upon

an independent analysis, the University Tribunal came to the conclusion

that the charge of misconduct was duly proved and, having regard to the

gravity of the charge, the punishment of dismissal from service did not

appear to be disproportionate so as to warrant interference.

8.     Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ

jurisdiction.

9.     Mr. Prashant Patil, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a

valiant attempt to persuade the Court to hold that the impugned order

warrants interference in the exercise of power of judicial review.       A

three-pronged submission was canvassed. First, the findings of

absenteeism and temporary misappropriation of money were not

substantiated by the material on record. Second, even otherwise, the

purported misconduct on these counts was not such as to warrant the

extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Third, the charge of indulging

in corruption by accepting money from parents of the wards on the

pretext of securing admission in the college cannot be said to have been

duly proved, as the persons who had allegedly given the money were not

examined as the Employer’s witnesses. In any event, Mr Patil would

urge, the entire money was refunded by the Petitioner. There was no

intention to deceive either the college or the students and their parents.

Thus, the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly


ARS                                   3/8
                                                               -WP-3947-2026.DOC

disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, submitted Mr.

Patil.

10.      To begin with, it is necessary to keep in view the nature of

judicial review exercised by the Writ Court. In essence, judicial review is

an apprisal of the decision making process, and not the merits of the

decision itself. The objective of judicial review is to ensure fairness in the

process and treatment, and not the correctness of the conclusion arrived

at by the Disciplinary Authority. Generally, the power of the judicial

review is to be exercised to correct patent and manifest errors of law or

procedure which entail injustice, or where the offending action is an

outcome of bias or gross unreasonableness.

11.      A useful reference in this context can be made to the decision of

the Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India And

Ors,1 wherein both the nature of judicial review and the quality and

reliability of the material in the matter of disciplinary proceedings were

expounded as under:

         “12.   Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
         review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
         judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives
         fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
         authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
         When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
         public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
         whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether

1        (1995) 6 SCC 749.
ARS                                       4/8
                                                             -WP-3947-2026.DOC

      the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of
      natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or
      conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted
      with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
      authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that
      finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
      rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined
      therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority
      accepts   that   evidence   and   conclusion   receives   support
      therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
      delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in
      its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority
      to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
      independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
      interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
      delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
      natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
      mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by
      the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
      conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would
      have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
      conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it
      appropriate to the facts of each case.


      13.   The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
      Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co-
      extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of
      punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal
      evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.
      Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be
      permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union
      of India Vs H.C. Goel, (AIR 1964 SC 364), this Court held at

ARS                                      5/8
                                                                -WP-3947-2026.DOC

       page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the
       evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or
       suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on
       no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”


12.    To put it in other words, judicial review is not an Appeal in

disguise. The jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors

of law, procedural errors or violation of the principles of natural justice

leading to manifest injustice.

13.    On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the case, it

becomes abundantly clear that the Enquiry Officer had provided an

efficacious opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Indeed, only one

witness was examined on behalf of the Employer. However, the material

on record indicated that the Petitioner had virtually admitted the

imputations by submitting letters tendering apologies for the misconduct

in which the Petitioner had allegedly indulged in.

14.    The submission of Mr. Patil that the evidence on the aspect of

inducing the parents to part with the money was wholly inadequate, as

the persons who allegedly paid the amount to the Petitioner were not

examined, does not merit acceptance. Not only the parents had

addressed communications to the Principal of Respondent No.2, making

allegations against the Petitioner of having duped them, but the

Petitioner admitted the said fact by tendering a letter of apology. To add

to this, the Petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding

ARS                                       6/8
                                                         -WP-3947-2026.DOC

with one of the parents, acknowledging the fact that the Petitioner had

demanded a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- from the said person, a sum of

Rs.1,04,000/- was returned and the balance amount of Rs.1,36,000/-

would be returned by post-dated cheques. Thus, the Enquiry Officer was

justified in returning a finding of guilt on the basis of the aforesaid

material, which appeared to be unimpeachable.

15.    In regard to the charge of absenteeism, the University Tribunal

has noted that in the year 2017, the Petitioner remained unauthorisedly

absent from duty for 102 days. On the charge of misappropriation, it was

found that the Petitioner was entrusted with the sale of journals and the

Petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.43,836/- and eventually

deposited the said amount on 18th April 2017. The Petitioner had not

given the account of the sale of the journals and the amount received.

Thus, a clear case of temporary misappropriation of the said amount was

made out.

16.    Upon a careful evaluation, the learned Presiding Officer,

University Tribunal, has found the findings recorded by the Enquiry

Officer on each counts of charge to be sustainable. As noted above, the

sufficiency or adequacy of the material cannot be delved into in the

exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Thus, the findings recorded by the

Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the University Tribunal cannot be said to

be either perverse or based on no evidence.


ARS                                   7/8
                                                          -WP-3947-2026.DOC

17.    The submission of Mr. Patil that the punishment of dismissal from

service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct is

required to be stated to be repelled. Misappropriation and corruption are

the categories of misconduct which warrant the punishment of dismissal

from service. Such punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to

the gravity of the misconduct.

18.     Lastly, Mr. Patil endevoured to salvage the position by canvassing

a submission that, since the Petitioner had repaid the entire amount,

which was allegedly misappropriated, to the College (R2) and also

returned the entire amount paid by the parents of the ward, the

punishment of dismissal from service is required to be modified. I am

afraid to accede to this submission. It is trite law that mere repayment of

money does not absolve an employee of the serious charge of

misappropriation and corruption (Narendra Nath Bhalla vs State of Uttar

Pradesh)2

19.    The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that no

interference is warranted with the impugned order in the exercise of

supervisory jurisdiction.

20.    Hence, Petition stands dismissed. No costs.



                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]



2      (2007) 15 SCC 775.
ARS                                    8/8