Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was appointed as a full-time Assistant Professor in Biotechnology at Wilson College, Mumbai, in 2005 and later absorbed into an aided course. Following a show-cause notice in January 2014 and a decision by the Board of Management in March 2014 to appoint an inquiry officer, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under Statute 439D of the University of Mumbai Statutes, alleging misconduct, moral turpitude, and willful negligence of duty. The petitioner did not participate in the inquiry, which proceeded ex parte, and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report in May 2015. After the petitioner’s explanation, the Board of Management terminated his services by order dated 12 August 2015. The petitioner challenged the termination before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 23 March 2022, upholding the termination. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The sole legal issue raised was whether the appointment of the Inquiry Officer by the Board of Management, rather than the Governing Body as mandated by Statute 444 read with Statute 409(xvi), vitiated the entire inquiry. The petitioner argued that Statute 444 plainly requires the ‘Governing Body’ to appoint an Inquiry Officer, and Statute 409(xvi) defines ‘Governing Body’ as a body that both conducts the affairs of the college and is recognized by the University as Employer. An affidavit filed by the Deputy Registrar of the University in the Tribunal proceedings confirmed that, according to University records, the Governing Body of Wilson College is the John Wilson Education Society (respondent no.1) and not the Board of Management. The respondents contended that the Board of Management conducts the affairs and is therefore the Governing Body, and relied on a previous decision of the Bombay High Court in a different statutory context. The Court, per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., examined the statutory scheme. It noted that the conjunctive ‘and’ in Statute 409(xvi) makes both conditions – actual conduct of affairs and University recognition as employer – mandatory. The Court found that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the definition by focusing only on the first limb and ignoring the requirement of University recognition. The University’s affidavit unequivocally stated that only the Society was recognized as the employer. Accordingly, the Board of Management lacked the authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer, and the entire inquiry was vitiated. The impugned order of the Tribunal and the termination order were quashed. No back wages were awarded because the petitioner was gainfully employed during the intervening period, but the respondents were given liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry in accordance with the Statutes. The judgment was stayed for eight weeks on the respondents’ request.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of College Teacher - Proper Appointment of Inquiry Officer - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Statutes 409(xvi), 444 - The Petitioner, an Assistant Professor, challenged his removal on the sole ground that the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Board of Management and not by the Governing Body. Reading Statute 444 with Statute 409(xvi), the Court held that the expression 'Governing Body' requires both actual conduct of college affairs and recognition by the University as Employer; the conjunctive 'and' in the definition is not disjunctive. An affidavit filed by the University clarified that only the John Wilson Education Society, not the Board of Management, was recognized as the Governing Body. The College Tribunal had misinterpreted the definition by ignoring the second limb. Therefore, the appointment of the Inquiry Officer was defective and vitiated the entire ex‑parte inquiry and the resulting termination was set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings as per the Statute. Held that the inquiry was vitiated (Paras 8-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the Inquiry Officer by the Board of Management of Wilson College, instead of the Governing Body as defined under Statute 409 read with Statute 444 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, vitiated the inquiry proceedings.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order of the College Tribunal dated 23 March 2022 quashed and set aside. Termination order dated 12 August 2015 set aside. No relief of backwages granted as petitioner was gainfully employed during the intervening period. Liberty granted to respondents to initiate fresh inquiry in accordance with the relevant Statute. Judgment stayed for eight weeks.
Law Points
- Statute 444 read with Statute 409(xvi) of the Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 requires the Governing Body to appoint an Inquiry Officer
- 'Governing Body' under Statute 409(xvi) means a body which actually conducts the affairs of a college and which has been so recognized by the University as Employer
- the conjunctive 'and' requires both conditions
- appointment by a body not so recognized vitiates the inquiry
