Bombay HC – Limits of Interference by University Tribunal in Disciplinary Penalty and Findings of Enquiry Officer
Compulsory Retirement of Junior Engineer – Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities & Affiliated Colleges Standard (Terms and Conditions of services of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984.
On 17.3.2005, the respondent no.2 Vice Chancellor & the Competent Authority imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement acting on the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
The charges were – (i) issuance of blank tender forms, (ii) opening of envelopes and preparation of comparative statements and (iii) acceptance of gratification
By the judgment dated 14.6.2006, the University and College Tribunal allowed the appeal, set-aside compulsory retirement and directed reinstatement with full back wages.
The Tribunal, in interfering with the penalty, did not record reasons showing that the punishment was outrageously excessive or that relevant factors were ignored by the Disciplinary Authority. It substituted its own sense of what would be appropriate. That approach does not accord with the limited scope of review over punishment in disciplinary matters.
The Tribunal interfered on the ground that the penalty was disproportionate and proceeded to direct reinstatement with full back wages. Such an order carries serious consequences. Reinstatement wipes out the disciplinary action. Grant of full back wages assumes that the removal was unjustified and that the employee suffered loss solely because of wrongful action by the employer.
It is settled that back wages do not follow automatically upon reinstatement. The employee must plead and establish that he was not gainfully employed during the period of removal. This ensures that compensation is granted on a factual foundation. In the present case, the Respondent did not make a clear pleading before the Tribunal that he remained unemployed after the order of compulsory retirement. No material was placed to show absence of alternative income. In the absence of such foundation, the direction for full back wages was unsustainable.
Judgment dated 24.2.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.6550 of 2006 of University of Pune and another Vs. Shashank Balkrishna Bangale
