UNIVERSITY OF PUNE Vs. SHASHANK BALKRISHNA BANGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the Petitioners have assailed the Judgment and Order dtd. 14/7/2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the University and College Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement and directed reinstatement of the Respondent with full back wages.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 15/09/1995 in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Non- Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Standard Code. He assumed charge on 28/10/1995 and, upon satisfactory completion of the prescribed probationary period, was confirmed in service. During the course of his employment, certain complaints alleging serious misconduct were received against him. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, and upon receipt of an affidavit dtd. 30/8/2002 submitted by Shri Anjankumar Nanandkar, the Respondent was placed under suspension on 31/8/2002 under Rule 45 of the Standard Code pursuant to directions issued by Petitioner No.2. Subsequently, by order dtd. 26/9/2002, a Fact Finding Committee consisting of Dr. Shantishree Pandit as Chairperson and Prof. Dr. Sambhaji Pathare as Member was constituted to examine the complaints against the Respondent. The Committee conducted its inquiry and submitted its report to Petitioner No.2 on the same day. Upon consideration of the report, a charge-sheet dtd. 1/11/2002, accompanied by a statement of imputations, was issued to the Respondent containing three distinct charges.

(3.) The first charge alleged that the Respondent had furnished blank tender forms to contractors who were not duly registered with the competent authorities, thereby contravening Rules 41(2), 41(3) and 42(a) read with Rules 42(c), 42(d) and 42(i) of the Standard Code. It was specifically alleged that in respect of works estimated at Rs.50.00 lakhs under Advertisement No.6 dtd. 18/3/2002, M/s. Everest Engineers, which was neither registered nor in possession of a valid solvency certificate, was supplied with a blank tender form. A similar allegation was made in relation to Advertisement No.22 dtd. 25/4/2002, under which M/s. Arihant Constructions, being ineligible, was also supplied with a blank tender form. The second charge pertained to the alleged improper opening of tender envelopes in violation of the prescribed procedure. Under the established norms, tender documents are required to be submitted in two sealed envelopes, the first containing documents relating to eligibility and the second containing the financial bid, with the second envelope to be opened only upon verification of eligibility. It was alleged that the Respondent, despite being aware that M/s. Everest Engineers and M/s. Arihant Constructions were ineligible, proceeded to open their financial bids and recorded their quoted rates in the comparative statement, thereby violating Rules 41 and 42 of the Standard Code. The third charge related to grave misconduct in the nature of acceptance of illegal gratification. It was alleged that in connection with Advertisement No.52 dtd. 20/10/2001 for construction of a building for University Management Science Phase II, the Respondent demanded and accepted Rs.5,000.00 in cash and Rs.7,000.00 towards car travel expenses from Shri Anjankumar Nanandkar for approval of his tender, in breach of Rules 41(2), 41(3), 42(a), 42(c) and 42(r) of the Standard Code.