KU. JAYA Vs. WAINGANGA BABUUDESSHIYA VIKAS SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.11.2009 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3046/2001.

(2.) Facts in nutshell are that, the petitioner was appointed as a full-time Lecturer in the subject of Home Economics on temporary basis in the College run by respondent no. 1 by order dated 24.09.1999. The respondent no. 1-Society had issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 9.6.1999 calling application for appointment on the post of full-time Lecturer in Home Economics. The appellant applied for the said post and was accordingly appointed. The appointment order depicts the condition that the services of the appellant would be terminated any time without notice if her performance was not found to be satisfactory. The approval was granted to the appointment of the post of Lecturer on 10.1.2000. The services of the appellant were terminated on 20.2.2001 on the ground that during the academic session 1999-00 and 2000-01 her services were found to be unsatisfactory. The order of termination refers to a resolution of the Managing Committee dated 16.2.2001, which was based on a report of the Principal of the College. The termination order dated 20.2.2001 was challenged by the appellant before the College Tribunal by preferring an Appeal, under section 59 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the College Tribunal which was challenged before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3046/2001. The said judgment and order has been impugned in the present LPA by the appellant.

(3.) Mr. M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the learned single Judge has failed to consider that termination order of the appellant dated 20.2.2001 was not an innocuous order but it was apparently a stigmatic order. Hence it was incumbent on the respondents 1 to 3 to hold regular enquiry against the appellant prior to terminating her services. It was argued that the order of termination refers to resolution of the Manging Committee dated 16.2.2001 which was based on the report dated 8.2.2001 furnished by the Principal of the College wherein various allegations including the allegation of misappropriation were levelled against the appellant, which are indicative of punitive order which necessitates enquiry against the appellant. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Dipti Banerji v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,Calcutta, reported at AIR 1999 SC Page 983 , and urged that the allegation of misappropriation is highly stigmatic and, therefore, the appellant was without a job till 2011.