Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Chandraprakash Dattarao Khedkar, was initially appointed as Assistant Professor and later as Associate Professor in the Department of Dairy Microbiology at the College of Dairy Technology, Pusad, a constituent college of the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University. The Vice-Chancellor of the University passed an order dated 15/01/2014 dismissing the petitioner from service with disqualification for future employment. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3777/2016 before the Bombay High Court, which was disposed of on 19/10/2018. The High Court stayed the dismissal order and directed the Executive Council of the University to take up the petitioner's appeal under Section 17(17) of the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act, 1998, including the question of maintainability. The court further directed that if the decision of the Executive Council was adverse to the petitioner, it would remain stayed for 15 days. Subsequently, the Executive Council passed an order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, holding that the Vice-Chancellor's order was not an order of the 'competent authority' under the Act. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the Executive Council's order. The High Court found that the Executive Council had failed to comply with the earlier direction to consider the appeal on merits and had violated principles of natural justice by not giving the petitioner a hearing. The court set aside the Executive Council's order and directed it to hear the appeal afresh on merits, including the question of maintainability, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court also directed that the status quo order regarding the petitioner's service would continue until the Executive Council's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Service - Dismissal from Service - Section 17(17) of Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act, 1998 - The petitioner, an Associate Professor, was dismissed by the Vice-Chancellor. The High Court in the first round directed the Executive Council to consider the appeal including maintainability. The Executive Council dismissed the appeal as not maintainable without hearing the petitioner on merits. Held that the Executive Council failed to comply with the court's direction and violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-4, 7-8) B) University Law - Appeal - Maintainability - Section 17(17) of Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act, 1998 - The Executive Council held that the appeal was not maintainable because the Vice-Chancellor's order was not an order of the 'competent authority' under the Act. The High Court found that the Vice-Chancellor is the disciplinary authority and his order is appealable. Held that the Executive Council erred in dismissing the appeal on maintainability without considering the merits. (Paras 7-8) C) Natural Justice - Right of Hearing - The Executive Council passed the order dismissing the appeal without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Held that this violated principles of natural justice. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Executive Council of the University was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as not maintainable without considering the merits, and whether the termination of the petitioner's service was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Executive Council dated 17/08/2021, and directed the Executive Council to hear the petitioner's appeal afresh on merits, including the question of maintainability, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The status quo order regarding the petitioner's service was directed to continue until the Executive Council's decision.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Right of Appeal
- Maintainability of Appeal
- Section 17(17) of Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act
- 1998
- Executive Council Powers
- Writ Jurisdiction
