ANIL VASANT MANDKE Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 18th June 1986, Exhibit-A to the Petition, the charge-sheet issued to him on the same date, copy of which is at Exhibit-B to the Petition, so also the order dated 10th March 1989 removing him from services of the Indian Institute of Technology ('I.I.T.' for short).

(2.) The Petitioner appears in person. Aggrieved by these orders, he has filed the present Petition contending that he has a bright academic career and background. He states that an advertisement was issued by the 1st Respondent on 13th of August 1975, inviting applications for filling up of the posts of Training and Placement Officer in I.I.T., Mumbai. He submits that a letter of appointment was issued on 20th December 1975. The Petitioner underwent a medical examination on 26th December 1975 and joined duties with effect from 16th January 1976. He was given a confirmation letter on 16th of January 1977. He submits that all throughout the documents and letters issued to him demonstrate that his designation is that of a Professor. I.I.T. Professors and employees were treating him as Professor and, therefore, that was his designation. He submits that other Organizations and Authorities also corresponded with him by addressing him as Professor Mandke. He states that the Board of Governors granted him full pay scale of Rs. 1500-2500 vide orders dated 20th December 1985 and 17th June 1986.

(3.) The Petitioner's grievance is that an order of suspension was issued on 18th of June 1986 and on that date itself he was served with a charge-sheet. According to him, the charge- sheet is completely vague and ambiguous. He submits that the charge-sheet alleges that the conduct of the Petitioner is unbecoming of a Senior Officer. There is an allegation of disregard and violation of the orders issued by the Director of the 1st Respondent on 27th December 1985 pertaining to the functions and procedures to be followed by the Training and Placement Committee and various directions issued by the Chairman etc. The charge further is that the Petitioner persistently flouted the instructions issued by the Director against the use of the word 'Professor', Training and Placement 'Division' and 'Head' thereof. Thus, a deliberate attempt was allegedly made to create a false and misleading impression about the status of the office of the Training and Placement. Violation of certain office orders has been alleged. It is further alleged that the Petitioner showed scant regard, decency and decorum and often used rude and impertinent language towards the Chairman of the Training and Placement Committee. He willfully remained absent from duty at the Training and Placement office on 4th of April 1986 without prior permission and knowledge of the Chairman of the Training and Placement Committee in spite of the fact that campus interviews were arranged on the said date. The last and the eighth charge was that he created a situation for his own financial benefits by assigning himself more lectures.