Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Majalgaon Arts, Science and Commerce College, challenged the judgment and order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. BAMU-01/2016. The Tribunal had quashed the punishment of dismissal imposed on respondent No. 1, Sawarupsingh Asaram Umbare, by the management vide order dated 19.11.2015, and instead awarded a lesser punishment of permanently withholding two increments with future effect, directed reinstatement with 50% backwages from the date of dismissal till joining, and continuity in service. The appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting the punishment, contending that judicial review in administrative matters is limited to cases of no evidence or grossly disproportionate punishment. They relied on Supreme Court decisions in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Udaysingh Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar, (1997) 5 SCC 129, and R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 552. The court, after hearing submissions, held that the Tribunal under Section 59 of the Act has jurisdiction to modify punishment if it finds the punishment disproportionate. The court noted that the Tribunal had considered the evidence and found the punishment of dismissal disproportionate, substituting it with a lesser punishment. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such perversity or gross disproportionality in the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Scope - The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to cases of 'no evidence' or where the punishment is 'grossly disproportionate' to the misconduct - The Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has jurisdiction to modify punishment if it finds the punishment disproportionate - The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 4-6).
B) Service Law - Punishment - Proportionality - The Tribunal, while exercising appellate powers under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, can substitute a lesser punishment if the original punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct - The Tribunal's order of reinstatement with 50% backwages and withholding of two increments was upheld as not warranting interference (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the University and College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has jurisdiction to substitute a lesser punishment in place of the punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority, and whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can interfere with such order.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 20.06.2018 in Appeal No. BAMU-01/2016 is upheld.
Law Points
- Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to cases of no evidence or grossly disproportionate punishment
- Tribunal under Section 59 of Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 can substitute punishment
- Writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless perverse
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (12) 18
Writ Petition No. 10611 of 2018
Mr. N.B. Khandare h/f. Mr. D.J. Choudhary and Mr. A.G. Choudhary for Petitioners, Mr. Amol Joshi h/f. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh for Respondent No. 1, Mr. S.N. Morampalle AGP for Respondent No. 2
Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Majalgaon Arts, Science and Commerce College
Sawarupsingh Asaram Umbare and The Joint Director (Higher Education)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the University and College Tribunal which modified the punishment of dismissal to a lesser punishment of withholding two increments and directed reinstatement with 50% backwages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (Management and College) sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 20.06.2018 and restoration of the dismissal order dated 19.11.2015.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the Tribunal's order substituting the punishment of dismissal with a lesser punishment and directing reinstatement with backwages.
Previous Decisions
The disciplinary authority dismissed respondent No. 1 on 19.11.2015. The Tribunal in Appeal No. BAMU-01/2016 quashed the dismissal and imposed a lesser punishment of permanently withholding two increments with future effect, directed reinstatement with 50% backwages from 19.11.2015 till joining, and continuity in service.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has jurisdiction to substitute a lesser punishment in place of the punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority?
Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can interfere with the Tribunal's order modifying the punishment?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to cases of no evidence or grossly disproportionate punishment, and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting the punishment.
Petitioners relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, High Court of Bombay v. Udaysingh Nimbalkar, and R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has jurisdiction to modify punishment if it finds the punishment disproportionate. The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's order substituting dismissal with a lesser punishment of withholding two increments and directing reinstatement with 50% backwages was not perverse or grossly disproportionate, hence no interference warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The scope is very limited. It is only if it is a case of no evidence that a judicial review is permissible. Even in case of quantum of punishment, it is only if it is a case of grossly disproportionate punishment that a judicial review is permissible.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence and has found that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and has substituted it with a lesser punishment. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence.
Procedural History
The disciplinary authority dismissed respondent No. 1 on 19.11.2015. Respondent No. 1 filed Appeal No. BAMU-01/2016 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 before the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 20.06.2018, quashing the dismissal and imposing a lesser punishment. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court on 04.12.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994: Section 59
