DILIP AMBIWADE Vs. YASHWANTRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has appeared in person in the present petition has strenuously but with dignity placed his arguments before us to regain his lost job of the post of Assistant Registrar In the respondent No. 1 University. We have all sympathies for him. However, the dictate of law and the emerging facts from the record per force compels us to take a contrary decision. A summary of the facts to the extent necessary for determination of the issues raised in the present petition have been briefly recorded hereunder.

(2.) On 28-1-1992 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Registrar in the respondent University. It seems that from the beginning his relationship with the management has not been cordial. On 13-12-1994. the petitioner was suspended from services. On 3-1- 1995, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. In Jan. 1995 itself the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 47 of 1995 challenging the suspension order on the ground of alleged mala fide. By a consent order dated 1-2-1995 by and between the management and the petitioner it was agreed that though the suspension will not be revoked, the enquiry against the petitioner will be completed expeditiously and in any event within a period of four months from the date of the said order. On 7-1-1995, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated pursuant to the said enquiry proceedings. This termination order was challenged in this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3279 of 1995. By an interim order dated 7-9-1995, this Court was pleased to stay the order of termination and directed that the petitioner should be continued in service pending the disposal of the said petition.

(3.) Consequently, the petitioner was taken back in job but was transferred to the Registration Sec. and it is the case of the petitioner that he exposed a malpractice racket which was rampant at that point of time in Registration Sec. of the University. It is his further case that he also addressed various letters to the Vice Chancellor exposing the aforesaid malpractices and seeking action against the employees of the said Registration Section. Sometime in or about Nov., 1997, it came to the notice of the University that there have been malpractices in admission to the college and accordingly a fact finding committee was appointed to look into illegal admissions which had never been sanctioned by the Admission Committee. On 11-12-1997, a police complaint was filed against the petitioner as one of the accused involved in a racket of granting admission by accepting money. On the same day, the petitioner was arrested and search was carried out at his house. On 17-12 1997, the petitioner was released on bail. In the meantime on 15- 12-1997, the petitioner was suspended from service once again. On 21-1-1998, a charge- sheet was issued to the petitioner inter alia seeking his explanation as to why his services should not be terminated on the basis of various charges including the charge of malpractices in granting admission to the students in 1st Respondent University. On 2-5-1998, the petitioner filed his reply. It seems that in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner did not remain present and an expert enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In July 1998, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 4217 of 1998 in this Court challenging his suspension order and also commencement of a department enquiry against him. On 9-10- 1998, this Court set aside the departmental enquiry as well as the suspension order against the petitioner and reinstated the petitioner in service. However, the management preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Honourable Supreme Court of India being SLP (Civil) No. 17195 of 1998 and by an order and judgment dated 15-3-1998, the Apex Court allowed the said Special Leave Petition and set aside the High Court order and directed that the enquiry must proceed. On 23-6-2000, the said writ petition No. 4217 of 1998 which was pending in this Court, came up for hearing when this Court refused to interfere with the pending enquiry proceedings and/or suspension order. The said petition was dismissed with the direction that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the said writ petition are kept open to be agitated at the time of challenge to the final order if passed against the petitioner in the course of enquiry proceedings. The matter was proceeded further and ultimately the enquiry officer has given his report and the same was served upon the petitioner on 23-6-2000 seeking his explanation as to why his services should not be terminated. On 25-8-2000. the petitioner filed his reply to the said show cause notice and ultimately on 12-10-2000 the services of the petitioner were terminated. Being aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in this Court and has inter alia sought a writ of certiorari from this Court for quashing and setting aside the charge- sheet dated 31-1-1998 and consequent termination order dated 12-10- 2000. The petitioner as a consequential relief has also claimed that the petitioner should be reinstated in the post of the Assistant Registrar in the first respondent University with full backwages and all other consequential benefits. The petitioner is also seeking a promotion to the higher grade which he has lost in the course of the enquiry proceedings.