BILLIMORA VIBHAG KELVANI MANDAL Vs. H N DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Advocates Ms. Vashi and Mr. Chauhan waive service for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) The petitioner, management of the College, challenges the judgement and order dated 29th August, 2003 passed by the learned Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal in Appeal No.2 of 2002. The College Management had decided to remove the respondent No.1, Lecturer in Accountancy, from service for want of workload. After following procedure as envisaged in Ordinance 69-A(8)(B) of the South Gujarat University, the respondent No.2 herein, approval was sought from the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Vice Chancellor under order dated 30th March, 2002, opined that the management had failed to follow the procedure, inasmuch as after receiving the report of the enquiry officer, no notice was given to the concerned Lecturer i.e. respondent No.1 herein. The Vice Chancellor, therefore, refused to accord approval to the proposal made by the management. Feeling aggrieved, the management preferred the above referred Appeal No. 2 of 2002 before the Tribunal. The said Appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal under the impugned judgement and order. The Tribunal has held that the management did not send the enquiry report to the Vice Chancellor along with its proposal. Thus, the management failed to comply with the procedural requirement as envisaged under Ordinance 69-A(8). Feeling aggrieved the management has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Shah has submitted that the respondent No.1 was sought to be removed from service for want of sufficient workload. The management was, therefore, under obligation to follow the procedure as envisaged in Ordinance 69-A (8)(B) of South Gujarat University. The said procedure does not envisage giving of notice to the Lecturer concerned after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer. The Vice Chancellor, thus, committed mistake in holding that the management did not follow the proper procedure. He has submitted that it never was the case of the Vice Chancellor that the relevant papers i.e. the report of the enquiry officer was not submitted to the Vice Chancellor. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has held that the relevant papers were not sent to the Vice Chancellor and hence rejected the appeal preferred by the management.