Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mallinath Vithal Vathakar, was appointed as a watchman (Class IV) in Sree Narayan Guru College of Commerce on 19 October 1996 and later confirmed. On 19 June 2003, he was given the post of Library Attendant, reserved for SC community. Allegedly, at the behest of the college, staff targeted him on trivial issues and lodged false police complaints. Professor A.P. Kadam complained on 4 September 2007 that the petitioner interrupted a Blood Donation Programme on 22 August 2007 and threatened him in the Teachers Room. On 12 September 2007, the petitioner was suspended and issued a charge-sheet. An enquiry officer was appointed, and proceedings were conducted from 5 November 2007 to 3 March 2008. The enquiry officer submitted a report recommending removal, and after a show-cause notice, the petitioner was removed from service on 13 May 2008. An appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal was dismissed on 23 September 2008, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the enquiry was unfair because not all listed witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer illegally recommended punishment. The respondents contended that the enquiry was fair, spanning over six months, with full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead defense evidence. The court examined the enquiry proceedings and found that the petitioner's defense representative cross-examined management witnesses, and the petitioner examined himself but no other witnesses. The court held that the enquiry was fair and proper, and the recommendation of punishment by the enquiry officer is permissible under Rule 46(16)(v) of the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984. The court also noted that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probabilities, citing M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das and Moni Shankar v. Union of India. The Tribunal's findings were not perverse, and the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Fairness of Enquiry - Standard Code Rules, 1984 - Petitioner challenged dismissal from service on grounds of unfair enquiry and illegal recommendation of punishment by enquiry officer - Court held that enquiry was fair as petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence, and recommendation of punishment is permissible under Rule 46(16)(v) of the Standard Code Rules - Held that Tribunal's findings were not perverse and no interference warranted (Paras 7-9).
B) Service Law - Standard of Proof - Preponderance of Probabilities - Disciplinary proceedings require proof on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt - Court relied on M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das and Moni Shankar v. Union of India - Held that evidence adduced by management met the standard (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper, and whether the recommendation of punishment by the enquiry officer was illegal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the order of removal from service are upheld.
Law Points
- Preponderance of probabilities in disciplinary proceedings
- Scope of judicial review of departmental enquiries
- Fairness of enquiry
- Recommendation of punishment by enquiry officer
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 138
WRIT PETITION NO.7268 OF 2008
Mr. S. K. Tripathi for Petitioner; Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.2-State; Mr. S. C. Naidu i/b. Mr. Rahul D. Oak along with Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Ms. Gunjan for Respondent Nos.3 and 4; Ms. Manisha V. Joshi for Intervenor
Mallinath Vithal Vathakar
The Registrar, University of Mumbai; Joint Director of Higher Education; The Principal, Sree Narayan Guru College of Commerce; The President, Sree Narayan Guru College of Commerce
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against removal from service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's judgment and the order of removal from service.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the departmental enquiry was not fair and proper and that the enquiry officer illegally recommended punishment.
Previous Decisions
The Mumbai University and College Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.64 of 2008 on 23 September 2008, upholding the removal order.
Issues
Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper.
Whether the recommendation of punishment by the enquiry officer was illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the enquiry was unfair because not all listed witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer illegally recommended punishment.
Respondents argued that the enquiry was fair, spanning over six months, with full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead defense evidence, and that recommendation of punishment is permissible under Rule 46(16)(v) of the Standard Code Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, and the court's scope of judicial review is limited to examining whether the enquiry was fair and the findings are not perverse. The recommendation of punishment by the enquiry officer is permissible under the applicable rules.
Judgment Excerpts
There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.4-college and that he was amenable to the disciplinary proceedings under the Standard Code Rules which describes riotous and disorderly behaviour and threatening and intimidating and coercing in connection with and relating to the duties and working of the college as misconduct.
Perusal of the enquiry proceedings indicate that there is no haste shown by the enquiry officer in conduct of enquiry. Fair opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the management and having regard to the enquiry proceeding, there is no reason to hold that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not fair and proper.
There cannot be dispute about the proposition of law, that proof of misconduct in a disciplinary proceedings is on preponderance of probabilities.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as watchman on 19 October 1996, confirmed after probation, and later given post of Library Attendant on 19 June 2003. On 12 September 2007, he was suspended and issued charge-sheet. Enquiry conducted from 5 November 2007 to 3 March 2008. Enquiry officer recommended removal; show-cause notice issued on 24 April 2008; petitioner removed on 13 May 2008. Appeal filed under Section 59 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 before Mumbai University and College Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 23 September 2008. Present writ petition filed on 2008.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994: Section 59
- Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984: Rule 46(16)(v)
