DR. D.R. KALSULKAR, S.P.K. MAHAVIDYALAYA, SAWANTWADI Vs. SOUTH RATNAGIRI DISTRICT SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Head of Department of Physics in the College known as Panchanana Khemraj Mahavidyalaya at Sawantwadi. The College is run by South Rat- nagiri District Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sawantwadi of which Shivram Raje Bhonsle was the President at the relevant time. The College was affiliated at the relevant time to Shivaji University and the services of the teachers were regulated by Statutes framed by Shivaji University. The Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Mandal by order dated June 20, 1975 appointed the petitioner as Principal of the College with effect from July 1, 1975 on probation for a period of one year. The probation period was to come to an end by end of June 1976 and on June 16, 1976, the Managing Committee passed resolution that the petitioner should be appointed as Principal on a long term basis and until further orders with effect from July 1, 1976. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding - the post of Principal right from July 1, 1975 onwards.

(2.) On Oct. 5, 1988, the Managing Committee authorised the President Shivram Raje Bhonsle to make enquiries about the charges levelled against the Principal and take appropriate decision. In purrsuance of this resolution, on Oct. 16, 1980, the President acting as one-man Committee of the Governing Council of the Mandal served show cause notice upon the petitioner to explain why action should not be taken for acts of defaults and maladministration set out in the notice. Twenty acts of defaults and maladministration on the part of the petitioner, while discharging duties as Principal from July 1, 1975 onwards, were set out. In answer to the show cause notice, the Principal filed his detailed reply dated Oct. 29, 1980. The petitioner denied that he was guilty of defaults or maladministration in the discharge of his duties as a Principal. After receipt of the reply, the President without holding any enquiry whatsoever or without giving any opportunity to the petitioner passed order dated Feb. 11, 1981 relieving the petitioner from his post as Principal of the College and transferring the petitioner to the post of Head of the Department of Physics with effect from Feb. 12, 1981. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred appeal before the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal for Bombay and S.N.D.T. Women's Universities at Bombay. The appeal ended in dismissal by order dated March 1, 1982. The Tribunal held that the action of the management does not suffer from any infirmity and cannot be faulted. The Tribunal felt that as the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal was "until further orders", it was open for the management to terminate the said appointment without holding any enquiry. The action of the management as well as the order of the Tribunal are under challenge in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the - Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Dalvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the management had thrown out the petitioner from the post of Principal without following any rules or without complying with the requirements of the Statutes framed by Shivaji University. The learned counsel urged that the management over- looked that the petitioner stands confirmed in the post of Principal after passage of three years from the date of appointment and without following the procedure required for removal of a permanent Principal, the action of the management cannot be sustained. Shri Dalvi further submitted that the action of the management amounts to termination from the post of Principal, or, in any event reversion to the post of Head of Department and these punishments are imposed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to answer and to defend the charges levelled. The learned counsel also urged that it was not permissible for the President of the Mandal to act as one-man committee and take disciplinary action against the Principal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was not in a permanent post or the petitioner was not confirmed in the post of Principal of the College and, therefore, the action of the management cannot be faulted. It was also urged that the petitioner was merely a temporary Principal. We are unable to find any merit in the submission urged on behalf of the Management and, in our judgment, the petitioner was unceremoniously thrown out from the post of Principal without following any procedure whatsoever.