Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This petition is filed by one Tanaji Mahadev Nikam who was terminated from his service as clerk by respondent No. 1 as per Exhibit G dated 28-4-1988 which is signed and sent by Secretary of respondent No. 1. It is stated in the said termination order Exhibit G that the petitioner was working as a Junior Clerk and was found involved in financial irregularities, and therefore, an inquiry was held against him and since he was found guilty, the Executive Committee of respondent No. 1 had decided in its meeting dated 23-4-1988 to terminate his service under Rule 43(B)(5) of the Standard Code, 1984. Accordingly the service of the petitioner were terminated from 1-5-1988, and he should have to hand over his charge on 30-4-1988.

6. As against this it was contended by Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had adopted Standard Code 1984 prescribed by the Government and the petitioner was terminated from the service under section 42(B)(5) of the Standard Code, but since the Standard Code did not provide any remedy of appeal, the petitioner was required to file appeal under the provisions of the Shivaji University Act, the Act squarely applies to the facts of the case and the College Tribunal was in erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction. Secondly, it was contended by Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the affidavit filed by one Ramchandra Potekar that though respondent No. 1 was known as Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and was having number of employees, it was not that the employees of respondent No. 1 Sanstha were never transferred to the colleges or other educational institutions of respondent No. 1. Deponent Mr. Potekar has also given nine examples wherein all those nine employees who were employed by respondent No. 1 and who were working in the office of respondent No. 1 were transferred to the educational institutions i.e. school and colleges, and therefore, according to Counsel for the petitioner, the status of respondent No. 1 was not different from or separable from the status of a college or a recognized institute, and therefore, the College Tribunal only had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal against termination.