PANDURANG HARI KULKARNI Vs. MANOHAR GOPAL VEDALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The litigation involved in this writ petition has a chequered history. The petitioners Rashtriya Shikshan Mandal, Pune run the Tilak Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, which is affiliated to the Pune University. The respondent Manohar Gopal Wadalkar was initially appointed as a Demonstrator in the said college in the year 1945. Then he was promoted as a Professor in the year 1955 and from 15th April, 1972 he was working as a principal. From 14th December, 1975 one Mr. Prabhugaonkar came to be appointed as the Principal. Thereafter respondent Wadalkar continued in service as a Professor and head of the department till he completed the age of 58 years on 25th March, 1980. It was his case that in view of the rules of the University, he was entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. However, he came to be retired by an order dated 25th of March, 1980 on his attaining the age of 58 years. It was the case of the petitioners that since the salary of the respondent-Vadalkar was admissible as per the grant in aid scheme of the Government, he stood retired on completing the age of 58 years as per the provisions of the grant in aid and the rules of the University did not apply to his case. This order of retirement was challenged by the respondent---Vadalkar before the Tribunal constituted under the University Act. The Tribunal by its order dated 27th August, 1980, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed his reinstatement. The Society filed a writ petition against the said order, which came to be dismissed. The society also filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. It was the case of the respondent---Vadalkar that at no time the order passed by the Tribunal was stayed either by this Court or by the Supreme Court of India and, therefore, the society was obliged to comply with the said order and take him on duty. Since the order of Tribunal was not obeyed the respondent---Vadalkar filed a Criminal Complaint before the Addittional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune under section 42-F of the Poona Univesity Act, 1974. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, by his judgment dated 29th April, 1983 convicted the society as well as its Trustees for an offence punishable under section 42-F(1)(a) of the Poona University Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer S.I. for 10 days. Against the said order a revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune which also came to be dismissed on 10th of July, 1982. Further the Criminal Writ Petition filed before this Court was also dismissed on 13th August, 1984. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune under section 47(1)(i)(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for removal of the trustees on the ground that the petitioners in this writ petition were convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. An application for interim order was also filed by the opponent---Vadalkar before the Joint Charity Commissioner vide his order dated 6th June, 1984 passed an order temporarily suspending the petitioners from the posts of trustees till the disposal of the application, which the Court directed, will be disposed of after the final decision in the Criminal Revision No. 211 of 1983 pending in the Sessions Court. As already observed said revision petition came to be dismissed on 10th July, 1984 and the writ petition filed against the said judgement was also dismissed on 13th August, 1984. It is this order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune dated 6th June, 1984 which is challenged in present petition.

(2.) Shri. Raja S. Bhonsale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that the Joint Charity Commissioner committed an error apparent on the face of record in coming to the conclusion that the conviction under section 42-F of the Poona University Act, amounts to a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. According to the learned Counsel the said offence is technical in nature and does not involve any moral turpitude. It was also contended by him that if the action taken by the society, directing the retirement of the respondent---Vadalkar, is considered with the attending circumstances i.e. that the college was bound by the grant in aid rules of the Government, which lays down that the employee shall stand superannuated on completion of age of 58 years, then it cannot be said that the society or the trustees acted either mala fide or with the ulterior motives. The salary payable to the respondent---Vadalkar has been paid by the Government under grant in aid scheme. Therefore, the society felt that it was bound by the terms and conditions of the grant in aid Code. Therefore, it acted bona fide in passing the order of retirement. It is no doubt true that the said order was set aside by the University Tribunal and the writ petition filed against the same also came to be dismissed, so also Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court. But it cannot be forgotten that all through the society as well its trustees acted bona fide and in the interest of the society. It is also through that in the criminal case filed by the respondent, they came to be convicted but the said conviction cannot be termed as conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. In support of this contention Shri Bhonsale has placed reliance upon the following decisions:---

(3.) On the other hand it is contended by Shri. Jahagirdar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent---Vadalkar that all through the petitioners have acted malafide with the sole intention to harass the respondent---Vadalkar. In this context he has placed reliance upon the earlier writ petition filed before this Court and the orders passed therein. He also contended that the petitioners did not follow the order passed by the University Tribunal. Not only this but also did not obey the direction issued by the Registrar of the University. He then contended that all other staff members are required to serve upto the age of 60 years while respondent alone was removed at the age of 58 years. This action was per se mala fide. At no stage the order passed by the University Tribunal was stayed by any Court of law. Therefore, the petitioners were obliged to obey the orders. During the litigation respondent completed the age of 60 years. Ultimately the Court has to pass orders directing the Governement to pay the full salary of the respondent which came to be paid. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel that if the conviction of the petitioners under section 42-F of the Poona University Act is considered with the attending circumstances, a conclusion is inevitable that the petitioners were convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude.