Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard three connected writ petitions involving a dispute over the disciplinary action against the Principal of Shri Gadge Maharaj Vidyalaya, Murtizapur, District Akola, and the re-appointment of the Principal. The Principal, appointed on 22/11/2016, faced complaints from respondent employees on 13/11/2020 regarding failure to send placement papers, use of abusive language, and issuance of demoralizing notices. On 17/11/2020, a complaint was made to Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, and on 18/11/2020, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a three-member Committee to inquire into the grievances. The Committee submitted its report, and on 18/2/2021, the Vice-Chancellor directed the College to hold disciplinary proceedings against the Principal and submit a report. The Principal filed Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2021 challenging the communications dated 18/11/2020 and 18/2/2021, arguing that the Vice-Chancellor lacked jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 to direct disciplinary action by the Management, and that aggrieved employees should have approached the Grievances Committee under Section 79. The aggrieved employees filed Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2021 seeking implementation of the 18/2/2021 direction, disciplinary enquiry against the Principal, pay fixation, and payment of eleven days' salary, contending that Section 12(14)(a) empowered the Vice-Chancellor to conduct an inquiry and that the action was justified because the Management and College had failed to consider their complaints. The Management filed Writ Petition No. 2570 of 2022 seeking approval of its proposal dated 22/10/2021 for re-appointment of the Principal for a further five years and challenging the Registrar's refusal dated 12/8/2022; it argued that the Management was master of its employees, that a resolution for re-appointment had been passed on 21/1/2021, that all deficiencies had been removed, and that the External Peer Review Committee had recommended the Principal's name, but the University failed to nominate the Chairperson and unjustifiably refused approval. The University supported the Vice-Chancellor's action under Section 12, asserting that a preliminary inquiry found substance in the complaints and that no interference was warranted. The judgment text provided ends without recording the final decision, holding, or operative directions of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Powers of Vice-Chancellor - Jurisdiction to Direct Disciplinary Inquiry - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, Section 12, Section 12(14), Section 79 - The Principal challenged the Vice-Chancellor's communication dated 18/11/2020 constituting a three-member Committee and the communication dated 18/2/2021 directing the Management to hold disciplinary proceedings, contending that Section 12 does not confer such power and that the aggrieved employees should have approached the Grievances Committee under Section 79 (Paras 1, 3). The aggrieved employees argued that Section 12(14)(a) is wide enough to empower the Vice-Chancellor to look into employee complaints and direct an inquiry, and that a wrong reference to a provision would not nullify the exercise of such power (Paras 4). B) Service Law - Employer-Employee Relationship - Management as Master - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - The Management and Principal submitted that the Management is the master of its employees and alone has authority to take disciplinary action against an erring employee, which the Vice-Chancellor cannot usurp (Paras 3, 5). C) Education Law - Grievance Redressal Mechanism - Recourse to Grievances Committee - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, Section 79 - The Principal contended that aggrieved employees ought to have approached the Grievances Committee under Section 79 of the Act of 2016 instead of approaching the Vice-Chancellor, who lacked jurisdiction to entertain such grievances (Para 3). D) Service Law - Re-appointment of Principal - Approval by University and External Peer Review Committee - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - The Management sought consideration of its proposal dated 22/10/2021 for re-appointment of the Principal for another term of five years and challenged the Registrar's refusal dated 12/8/2022; it argued that the External Peer Review Committee had recommended the name and all deficiencies had been removed, but the University failed to nominate the Chairperson and wrongly refused approval (Para 5). E) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Standard of Review - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - The aggrieved employees contended that because the College and Management refused to consider complaints, the Vice-Chancellor's action was justified and no interference was warranted; they relied on N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre And Others, (2004) 12 SCC 278 for the proposition that a wrong reference to a provision is immaterial if power exists (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Vice-Chancellor of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University had jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 to constitute an Enquiry Committee and direct the College/Management to hold disciplinary proceedings against the Principal; whether the aggrieved employees should have approached the Grievances Committee under Section 79; whether the Registrar's refusal to approve the re-appointment of the Principal was valid.
Law Points
- Vice-Chancellor's powers under Section 12 of Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- 2016
- authority of management as master
- jurisdiction to direct disciplinary proceedings
- recourse to Grievances Committee under Section 79
- re-appointment of Principal and External Peer Review Committee approval
- principle that wrong reference to provision is immaterial if power exists.
