GUJARAT VIDYAPITH Vs. PIYUSH RAMANLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitionerthe Gujarat Vidhyapith, a deemed university has challenged judgment and order dated 30.03.2009 passed by Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal, ('the Tribunal' for short) in Appeal No.1 of 2008 preferred by the respondent against the order of his dismissal from service.

(2.) AS per the facts stated in the petition, the respondent was initially appointed as Assistant Registrar with effect from 20.01.1990. By the order dated 28.03.1998, respondent came to be appointed as development officer of the University. During his tenure as development officer, since regular registrar of the University retired from service with effect from 30.11.2000, he was given charge of Registrar with effect from 01.12.2000 till 31.03.2004 and from 01.04.2004 Dr.Rajendra Khemani came to be appointed as Registrar. During his service tenure, the respondent indulged into activities detrimental to the institution and such activities being the misconduct, the resolution dated 09.05.2005 came to be passed by the Trustee mandal of the petitionerUniversity, for taking action against the respondent. The respondent was served chargesheet dated 12.05.2005 for 21 charges. For holding inquiry into such charges, a retired District Judge was appointed as inquiry officer. Out of 21 charges, two charges were dropped and from remaining 19 charges, 15 charges were held proved against the petitioner as per the inquiry report dated 15.05.2006. The respondent was then issued show cause notice dated 20.05.2006 calling upon him to explain why major punishment under civil service appeal rules should not be imposed. After respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authoritythe Vice Chancellor passed order dated 08.07.2006 dismissing the respondent from service. The respondent challenged the said order by filing appeal on 14.07.2006 before the Trustee Mandal of the University. The Trustee Mandalthe Appellate Authority reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement by its decision dated 20.11.2006. Against said decision, the respondent preferred Appeal No.1 of 2007 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal since expressed its primafacie opinion that the Trustee mandal could not have decided the appeal, but the Executive Council should have decided the appeal, the petitioner agreed for disposal of the appeal with certain directions. The respondent thereafter preferred appeal before Executive Council on 12.11.2006. Before the Executive Council, the respondent did not raise any contention as regards the authority of the Vice Chancellor to pass order of dismissal against him or as regards the competence or formation of the Executive Council to decide the appeal. The Executive Council thereafter decided the appeal and by its order dated 08.02.2008 held that considering the charges proved against the respondent, it would not be in the interest of the petitioner university to continue the respondent in service and for the charges proved against the respondent, there could not be any other punishment except the punishment of dismissal. Thus, the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was confirmed by the Executive Council. Being aggrieved by such order of Executive Council in appeal preferred by the respondent, the respondent filed further appeal being Appeal No.1 of 2008 before the Tribunal under Section 14(3) of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short). Before the Tribunal, though final hearing was concluded, the respondent moved amendment in the appeal with some documents which was objected to by the petitioner. However, the Tribunal allowed the amendment which was challenged by filing Special Civil Application No.9432 of 2008 before this Court. But, thereafter, the said petition was disposed of after expunging the remarks made against the petitioner and its advocate by the Tribunal. The Tribunal thereafter passed impugned order dated 30.03.2009, whereby, the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the order dated 08.07.2006 passed by the Vice Chancellor, dismissing the petitioner from the services and the decision dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Executive Council of the University, confirming the order of Vice Chancellor came to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to treat the respondent in continuous service on the post of development officer by reinstating him with full backwages.

(3.) I have heard learned advocate Mr.D.G.Chauhan with Mr.Ronak Chauhan for the petitioner and the respondent as party in person.