DILIP MANOHAR KHADTAREversusTHE SECRETARY-RAYAT SHIKSHAN SANSTHA and ORS.

                                                                          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.
SNEHA              Mr. Dilip Manohar Khadtare, Petitioner is present in the court.
NITIN              None for Respondents.
CHAVAN
                                                    ****
Digitally signed
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Date: 2026.10.01
10:42:39 +0530                                    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
                                                  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