KALYAN CITIZENS EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. PUSHPAVATI SHRIKRISHNA WAKODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioners challenge the order dated 22-10-1992 passed in Appeal No.28 of 1991 by the College Tribunal. By the impugned order, the College Tribunal has set aside the order of termination of service of the respondent which was passed by the petitioners and further the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and consequential benefits.

(2.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent herein was appointed as a Lecturer on probation for a period of 24 months with effect from 17-7-1990 and the communication to that effect was issued to the respondent by the Chairman of the petitioner-management on 16-7-1990. The respondent s services came to be terminated with effect from 21-4-1991 by issuing an order-cum-notice dated 14-3-1991. The respondent preferred an appeal against the said order of termination which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the same is contrary to the materials on record as well as to the provisions of law and, therefore, is unsustainable. While assailing the impugned order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal totally ignored the documents on record which would show due compliance of the Statute No.418(2) of the Bombay University Statutes. He, therefore, submitted that the records disclose that the decision to terminate the services was taken by the Governing Body and it was communicated to the respondent under the signatures of the Chairman of the Governing Body and that of the Principal and, therefore, there was no scope to find fault with the decision regarding the termination of services of the respondent. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the termination letter was delivered to the respondent on 19-3-1991 and therefore it became effective from the said day and hence no importance could have been given by the Tribunal to the date of 14-3-1991 recorded in the letter of communication. Drawing attention to the Statute No.418(2) and the copy of the performance report which was placed before the College Tribunal, submitted that the same was undisputedly in terms of Appendix D-1 to the Statutes and therefore it was not a self-assessment report but it was a report by the Principal in accordance with the said Statute and same having been totally overlooked by the Tribunal, the finding on the point of absence of such report is totally contrary to the materials on record and hence perverse.