HYDERABAD SIND NATIONAL COLLEGIATE BOARD Vs. NISHA RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the respondent No. 1. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners are challenging the order dated 31-8-2000, passed by the University and College Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order of reduction in rank passed on 8-3-1999 whereby she was reverted from her post of senior clerk to junior clerk. By the impugned order, the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent no. 1 to her original post of senior clerk and to pay the arrears of salary from the date of her reversion till the date of reinstatement.

(3.) THE impugned order is sought to be assailed, firstly, on the ground that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Rector and Secretary of the petitioner no. 1-Board was not a Competent Authority to hold departmental enquiry and to take decision regarding imposition of penalty and that the decision for reversing the respondent No. 1 from the post of senior clerk to junior clerk cannot be sustained when in fact the provisions of law contained in the maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employee) Rules, 1984, hereinafter called as "the said Rules" r/w the constitution of the petitioners clearly disclose such power in the holder of the office of the Rector and secretary and secondly, it is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the testimony of the Principal Kranti Kumar and the evidence of the witness Dwivedi and that the findings in that regard being contrary to the materials on record. On the other hand, attempt on the part of the petitioners to call for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction is objected to on the ground that the finding regarding the evidence of the Principal and the witness being untrustworthy, has been arrived at on analysis of the evidence on record and the same being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and in any case the same cannot be said to be contrary to the materials on record as the evidence clearly supports the said finding. As regards the power of the Rector and Secretary to take disciplinary action, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 fairly submitted that the provisions of law appear to be in support of the petitioners in that regard, however, has submitted that in view of the finding about absence of evidence in support of charge of misconduct on the part of the respondent No. 1, no interference is called for in the impugned order even on merits.