SUSHIND KISAN RATHOD Vs. RAJASHREE SHAHU SCIENCE COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, Mrs. M.A. Barabde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.3 and Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petition questions the judgment dtd. 04/03/2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in the appeal filed by the present petitioner under Sec. 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 seeking to quash and set aside the notice of termination dtd. 12/07/2017 issued by the respondent no.2, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 13/08/2017, which judgment dismisses the appeal filed by the present petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice of termination dtd. 12/07/2017 (pg.57) was stigmatic, as a result of which, the termination could not have been effected without conducting an enquiry, which was never done, on account of which the termination is bad in law. It is contended that the language of the order of termination dtd. 12/07/2017, though is claimed to be innocuous, however, since the order of termination refers to the earlier communications dtd. 07/11/2015; 21/09/2016 and 15/05/2017, all of which reflect upon the management questioning the conduct of the petitioner, the termination was stigmatic. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, (1999) 3 SCC 60; Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others (2000) 5 SCC 152; V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and others (2000) 3 SCC 239 and Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and another AIR 1984 SC 636.