DR. SHAIKH IMRAN Vs. MAULANA AZAD EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) By way of filing this Writ Petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks quashment of the departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner. It is also prayed that letter dated 20th Aug., 2018 appointing enquiry officer, is illegal and the enquiry conducted under the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 (for short "M.C.S. Rules") is not proper in view of the Uniform Statutes "Governing Terms and Conditions of service of Teachers Working in the Affiliated Colleges, Recognized Institutions, Autonomous Colleges, Community Colleges, Empowered Autonomous Colleges, Empowered Autonomous Cluster Institutions, Empowered Autonomous Skill Development Colleges in Maharashtra" (for short "Uniform Statutes"), and in particular Statute No.21 Therefore, it is prayed that the said letter may be quashed. The Petitioner also prays for staying the departmental enquiry on the ground that the charges framed in the departmental enquiry and in criminal case are one and the same and therefore, the enquiry may be stayed till the trial in the criminal case is over. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the exposition of law in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others AIR 1988 S.C. 2118, and in the case of The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Khushal Bhan AIR 1960 S.C. 806.

(3.) Mr. Dixit, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the appointment of the enquiry officer is illegal. An alleged departmental enquiry being conducted, is not as per the provisions stipulated under Statute No.212 of Uniform Statutes. It is further submitted that Statute No.213 of the Uniform Statutes stipulates that enquiry officer may be appointed for conducting enquiry, if disciplinary authority forms opinion based on the reports of the preliminary enquiry that delinquent has committed misconduct which may result in major penalty. Unless disciplinary authority forms opinion that misconduct committed by the delinquent may result in major penalty, enquiry cannot be directed. The disciplinary authority may appoint enquiry officer who is retired Judge below the rank of District Judge, and no other person is competent to be appointed as enquiry officer. However, in the present case such enquiry officer is not appointed. It is further submitted that the alleged resignation of the Petitioner is already challenged before the competent Court. It is further submitted that false criminal cases have been registered against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has registered F.I.R. against the members of the Respondent Management. The entire exercise on behalf of the Respondent Management is mala fide. In fact suspension order of the Petitioner was revoked and he joined the College, however, the said fact has been denied by the Respondents. Therefore, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relying upon the grounds taken in the Petition, including grounds inserted by way of amendment to the Petition and also annexures to the Petition, submits that the Petition may be allowed.