CITIZEN EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. DHANANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present reference is on account of the order dtd. 23/12/2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court and the question for consideration read as under:

(2.) The controversy lies in a narrow compass with the Statute 53 and Ordinance 24 framed under the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 taking center stage. Whether proviso below Clause 5 of Statute 53 will prevail over second proviso to Clause 8 of contract Schedule-A appended to Ordinance 24 is the broad question that we are asked to decide.

(3.) The relevant facts that require mention here are that respondent No. 1 was appointed on 3/9/1984 and his services were confirmed on completion of probation period. The Management initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.1, which culminated into termination of his services. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of termination before the University/College Tribunal. Presiding Officer of the Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that the order of termination was vitiated. Apart from non compliance of principles of natural justice, one of the reasons for allowing the appeal was absence of prior approval of the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur under Statute 53. In fact, the petitioners had sought permission to terminate the services of the respondent No.1, but it was rejected. The petitioners assailed the order of Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 1836 of 2009. The Writ Petition came to be allowed by directing the petitioners to continue enquiry proceedings from the stage at which it was found to have been vitiated. After completion of enquiry, the petitioners terminated the services of respondent No. 1. In appeal, the Tribunal vide its judgment dtd. 20/12/2019 set aside the order of termination for want of prior permission of the University, as contemplated by Statute 53. The aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. One of the grounds raised in the petition is that the proviso to Clause 5 of Statute 53 is not attracted to the case of respondent No. 1, since he has been confirmed after 2/1/1978 and his services are terminated on the ground of misconduct and after full fledged inquiry. During the hearing of the said Writ Petition, attention of the learned Single Judge ( learned referral Judge) was invited to a judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Sanjay Vidyasagar Soni, wherein relying on a decision of this court in CEO, Yashwant Rural Education Vs. Asmita Basole and Anr. reported in 1987 Mh.L.J. 676, a view was taken that prior approval, as required by Clause 5 of Statute 53 is mandatory, even in the cases of termination of employees on the ground of willful and persistent neglect of duty or misconduct.